Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

National Minimum Wage

Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the effect of a national minimum wage on the employment prospects of unemployed people in other EU countries. [31781]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): Reports by the OECD, the IMF and the European Commission confirm that a statutory minimum wage destroys jobs and job prospects, particularly for young people. That is most clearly demonstrated in France, where youth unemployment is twice the United Kingdom rate, and in Spain, where it is three times as high.

Mr. Wilkinson: It is welcome that my hon. Friend should spell out so unambiguously the potential consequences to this country of any imposition of a statutory minimum wage. In that regard, would it be only a self-imposed imposition, because neither European Union employment law, nor even the social chapter of the notorious Maastricht treaty itself, could impose such a requirement on this country?

Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is right. A minimum wage will be imposed in this country only if it is imposed by the Labour party if it gets into government. Its policy on the minimum wage is doubly dishonest. First, it pretends to the less well-off that there is some easy, cost-free method of raising their pay. Secondly, the Opposition will not indicate the level at which it will be set until after the election. They are giving the less well-off a menu without prices in the hope that they will not discover the true cost for their jobs until it is too late.

Ms Harman: How can the Minister justify to the House the fact that more than 1 million people earn less than £2.50 an hour? How can he justify the fact that the taxpayer has to pick up the bill for low pay to the extent of £2.4 billion? Is not the real reason why the Tories are against a national minimum wage that they are in favour of low pay? Is it not a disgrace that they have abolished the Department of Employment and that employment issues, such as unemployment and low pay, are to be consigned to the basement of the Department of Trade and Industry?

Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Lady is wrong. The pay of the least well-off has increased substantially. The pay of

a single man in the bottom 10 per cent. of earnings—[Interruption.]If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) will contain herself and listen, she might learn something. According to the labour force survey, which the Labour party says that it supports, the pay of a single man in the bottom 10 per cent. of earnings has risen by £27 since 1979—faster than prices. Under the last Labour Government, the pay of the same person would have fallen. Until Opposition Members can tell the country at what level they would set the minimum wage, their policy will have no credibility and will be nothing but a dishonest and cruel deceit on the less well-off.

Training Schemes

Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she next expects to meet representatives of East Anglian training and enterprise councils to discuss training schemes for the long-term unemployed. [31782]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I enjoy regular contact with the TEC movement in East Anglia.

Mr. Bellingham: Will the Minister find time today to pay tribute to the excellent work that the Norfolk and Waveney TEC has been doing for the long-term unemployed? Is it not worth reflecting on the fact that the TECs have been resisted at every turn and undermined by the Opposition, in spite of the excellent work that they have been doing? Does he also agree that, for the long-term unemployed, it is important to ensure plenty of business start-ups? What is he doing to help that?

Mr. Paice: I am happy to extend my good wishes to Norfolk and Waveney TEC, which has done a good job. Last year, when we published the TEC league tables, there was a substantial improvement in its performance, and I look forward to a continuing improvement next month, when we publish the tables for the past year. My hon. Friend is right to point out the problems of people wanting to start work and to become self-employed. That is why we have amended the rules of the training for work scheme to enable people, through training for work, to receive all the necessary advice, counselling, help and financial support, while they develop their business plans, so that any TEC is able to provide considerable support to such people.

Mr. Chidgey: Will the Minister confirm the success—I believe that it is right to call it that—of workstart pilot projects, especially in East Anglia, and will he confirm that he is planning to create another 5,000 places at a cost of £7.5 million? How can he reconcile that rather minimal investment with the forecast that there will still be over 1 million long-term unemployed by the year 2000, and the fact that unemployment is costing the country £20 billion a year? Does he think that some of the cuts in training expenditure should be transferred to workstart projects, which will improve training and the chances for the long-term unemployed of getting back into work in worthwhile jobs?

Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. There will be 5,000 places in workstart schemes this year, which is a considerable increase on last year. He is not right to talk about substantial cuts in the training budget. The fact


is that TEC budgets this year are almost identical to what they were last year. Yes, training for work has had a reduction; but there has been a substantial increase in other budgets so that the total has hardly changed.
The most important thing is that the overall number of opportunities for the unemployed has been maintained at last year's figure of 1.5 million, despite the fact that, during that time, unemployment has fallen substantially. There are more opportunities for those who are unemployed today in proportion to what was available a year ago.

Inactivity Rates

Mr. Milburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on inactivity rates. [31784]

Mr. Paice: The United Kingdom has a lower inactivity rate than any other major European Union country.

Mr. Milburn: Is the Minister aware that, over recent years, the number of people who are economically inactive and therefore displaced from the labour market has risen to over 7.8 million? Does that figure not give the lie to ministerial claims of success in tackling unemployment and creating jobs? More significantly, is it not symptomatic of a Government approach that is summed up by the decision to abolish the Department of Employment at the very time when there are more, not fewer, people struggling to find work?

Mr. Paice: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman fully understands what the economic activity and inactivity rates include. He suggests that those who are in the category of looking for work are somehow inactive; they are not. The unemployed are classified as economically active; the inactive figures to which he refers include, for example, the massive increase in the number of young people staying on at school. There has been an increase in the staying-on rate from 48 to 73 per cent. in the past 10 years. That is very good news for those young people's future career prospects, because they will have greater career opportunities and greater earning capacity. That is why the rate of inactivity has not gone down as much as the hon. Gentleman might wish.

Mr. Waterson: Does my hon. Friend agree, when we are talking about inactivity, that those in employment who fail to turn up for work for no good reason should be docked that day's pay, and that that should include Welsh Opposition Members who failed to turn up for Welsh questions?

Mr. Paice: It is entirely up to employers to make their own rules regarding deductions from wages for non-attendance. So far as the House is concerned, that is down to you, Madam Speaker.

Ms Short: I am afraid that the Minister is far too complacent. He seems to be unaware that one in four men of working age is without a job and that large numbers of those people are discouraged older workers. That is a result of one of the few successful Government policies: the encouragement of low-paid work. Virtually all the new jobs in the past 10 years have been low-paid, and have been overwhelmingly taken up by women living with an earning partner.
We have a growing crisis of work-rich families on the one hand and, on the other, work-poor families who are trapped in unemployment outside the labour market because the jobs available will not keep a family. We have a crisis and a soaring benefits bill. Have the Government any plans to address that?

Mr. Paice: Rarely has the House been exposed to such a nonsensical diatribe. The hon. Lady's facts are diametrically opposed to the truth. The simple fact is that in this country, as in every other country apart from Japan, there has been a small reduction in male activity rates, but it is not correct to align that fact with a change in the employment pattern over the past 10 or 20 years.
The hon. Lady suggests that all the jobs that have been created are part-time jobs for women, but that is not true. The vast majority of jobs in the early part of a recovery from recession are part time but, as recovery becomes more established, they become full-time. That is why full-time jobs are being created at the rate of two for every one part-time job at the moment. That is good news for all those who are unemployed and looking for work.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there has been a substantial rise in economic inactivity over the past 20 years—I believe from 2 to 13 per cent.—among men? Has he noted the especially high incidence of economic inactivity—dropping out of the labour market—among men over the age of 55? Now that the Department of Employment has been merged with the Department for Education, will my hon. Friend give new thought to how we can help to make such involuntary early retirement a dignified condition, and how we can support people who have this experience in developing a satisfying new phase of life?

Mr. Paice: It is not Government policy to encourage people to become economically inactive. We want everyone who wants a job to have the opportunity to find one, but the only way in which we can create jobs is by having a dynamic economy with low inflation, low interest rates and a competitive currency, which are precisely the criteria that we have. That is why we have a sustained rate of growth in our economy, one that is better than those of virtually all of our competitors.

European Works Councils

Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of European works councils. [31785]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Small Firms, Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): It is too early to assess works councils and other arrangements being established in response to the European directive.

Mr. MacShane: I thank the Minister for his reply. I do not know whether he represents the Department just abolished but a range of Front-Bench jobs have been created—perhaps those holding those jobs could form a works council to negotiate with their new boss. Now that Britain's main companies are forming a European works council at the rate of almost one a week and in defiance of the Government's opt-out from the social charter, will


the Minister join me in welcoming that trend and urge all the other multinationals in Britain to form European works councils as soon as possible?

Mr. Page: I am from the DTI and proud of it. May I correct a misapprehension under which the hon. Gentleman seems to be labouring? The Government are not against the creation of works councils and voluntary arrangements, but we are against compulsory bureaucratic legislation.

Mr. Brazier: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while there is a range of different ways in which employers may choose to organise their bargaining rights with their employees, what is completely wrong and anathema to Conservatives is the idea that bureaucrats in Brussels should lay down in detail what sort of relationship employers and employees should have with each other? Is that not one of the reasons why the Japanese and Americans seeking to invest money in Europe have chosen to invest pre-eminently in this country? Is it not a fact that we have attracted almost half the total inward investment in the European Union precisely because investors do not want to be dictated to about how to organise their working arrangements?

Mr. Page: My hon. Friend introduces the real world into this question—the real world of jobs, growth and development. It might be useful to remind the House that unemployment stands at almost 18.5 million in the European Union, whereas the figure is down to 8.3 per cent. in the United Kingdom, which is much lower than the European average, and still dropping. Some of our competitors in the European Union, such as France, have an unemployment rate of 12.4 per cent. That is the real world: creating jobs—jobs for British people.

Recently Unemployed People

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what new proposals she has for those who have been permanently employed who have recently become unemployed. [31787]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): We shall continue to follow policies that have reduced unemployment by more than 660,000 since recovery began and enabled nearly 300,000 new jobs to be created in the past year.

Mr. Flynn: I warmly congratulate the hon. Lady on her promotion to new duties, which is richly deserved, since, on a memorable occasion, she drew the Prime Minister's attention to Rentokil, a company that he has used effectively to get rid of the entire Department of Employment. The employees and Ministers of that Department have alternative employment prospects, but, sadly, many people who lose their jobs in mid-life have no such alternative and their working life ends at 50. When a similar event happens to many Conservative Members, and they then go on the jobseeker's trail, will the hon. Lady tell me what answer she will give to the question on the jobseeker's agreement "What is the minimum wage you would be prepared to work for"? I am sure that she will give the same answer that she expects of all other people.

Mrs. Gillan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous welcome, and might I add how pleased I am to

see him in the Chamber today—he has decided not to work part-time after all. The hon. Gentleman has missed the point behind the merger of the Departments for Education and of Employment. That merger sends the clearest possible signal that education and training are at the top of the Government's agenda to improve the country's competitiveness. The merger will also offer a real focus to active labour market policies and build on the achievements of recent years in reducing unemployment.

Mr. Fabricant: May I also take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on getting to the Front Bench and say how nice it is to see someone with such a lovely blond hairstyle, which is so appropriate? There is hope for us all yet.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the question from the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and the earlier question about works councils demonstrate that the Labour party still believes that it is the Government, rather than markets and industries, that can create jobs? Is it not the case that we have the lowest corporation tax in Europe and that it is that which is securing inward investment and jobs?

Mrs. Gillan: I thank my hon. Friend for his generous welcome for my appearance at the Dispatch Box, and I agree with him absolutely. The prospects for the unemployed in the United Kingdom continue to improve and new vacancies continue to be notified to jobcentres—more than 200,000 a month. It is our policies which are helping to put people back to work.

Ms Eagle: Will the Minister give us some information on when we will next be allowed to ask questions about the unemployment rate, since this is the last Employment Question Time that we shall be allowed to have? Will she confirm when it was decided to abolish the Department of Employment? What is the expected rate of redundancy among civil servants at that former Department?

Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Lady is quite ungenerous in her remarks about the merger of the two Departments. In fact, I was reading just earlier this morning that that merger has been welcomed by the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the National Union of Teachers, the Secondary Heads Association and the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers—just to name a few. The hon. Lady should re-examine what we doing in those two Departments and generously welcome the Government's brave policy, which will improve education and training right across the board.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people were in full-time work at (a) 1 July 1993 and (b) 1 July 1995. [31788]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): Over the quarters ending August 1993 and February 1995, there were 19 million and 19.2 million people in full-time employment in Great Britain.

Mr. Dunn: Will the Secretary of State please spell out the implications for those in employment of the introduction of the social chapter, the minimum wage, and


the loss of inward investment that would result from the policies of the Labour party and the parliamentary part-timers, the Liberal Democrats?

Mrs. Shephard: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his lovely blond hairstyle. As he well knows, the social chapter would roll back successes made in the United Kingdom in the past decade in modernising our industrial relations and removing the regulation that deters employers from taking on extra people. In the past decade, we have also provided extra help for unemployed people to find work.
The social chapter would increase burdens on employers. It would raise unemployment. Conservative Members believe that terms and conditions of employment should not be laid down by Government, much less by Brussels, but should be negotiated between employers and employees. Obviously, a national minimum wage would deter job creation. It would deter enterprise and destroy jobs. That is obvious to everyone except the Labour party.

Mrs. Mahon: Is it not true that nearly 600,000 women in part-time jobs had to stay there because they could not obtain full-time jobs, and that 2.5 million part-timers earn less than the national insurance threshold, thus excluding them from statutory sick pay, maternity pay and a retirement pension? How does the Minister believe those people will live when they get sick and when they get old?

Mrs. Shephard: It is true that the growth of employment in the early stages of recovery was concentrated among part-timers, but the hon. Lady should also know that full-time employment has now increased at a faster rate than part-time employment, and that only 14 per cent. of people who worked part time this winter did so because they could not find a full-time job. The imposition of a national minimum wage is the wrong way to tackle low pay and unemployment, and women would suffer the worst as a result.

Mr. Tredinnick: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the number of people employed in manufacturing increased by 15,000 in the quarter to March, and that that was the third quarter running? Will she also confirm that many of those jobs are in the east midlands, and most of them are full-time jobs?

Mrs. Shephard: I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, the Government's general approach to the labour market—a sound macro-economic policy, open trade and flexible labour markets—has helped the recovery and the creation of jobs, which he so rightly welcomes, in the east midlands as elsewhere in the country.

Ms Harman: Bearing in mind that, when the Secretary of State was Employment Secretary, she brought in the legislation that abolished the wages councils, thereby taking away low pay protection from 2.5 million workers, will she confirm to the House the figures that are in the latest labour force survey, which show that, in spite of the fact that pay for those in the bottom of those wages council sectors has fallen, and therefore they have suffered from the loss of that low pay protection, there has been no increase in jobs in those sectors and therefore we have the worst of all worlds—losing low pay protection and no extra jobs?

Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Lady has misread the labour force survey. She should know from that that the wages

of those who were previously covered by wages councils have increased faster than other wages. I repeat that pay must be a matter for determination between employers and employees. The hon. Lady needs to understand that a national minimum wage would have precisely the effect that she would so much deprecate.

Youth Unemployment

Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the effects of labour market regulation on levels of youth unemployment. [31789]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Robin Squire): The Government believe that labour market regulation damages the level of employment, particularly for young people. Youth unemployment is higher in France and Spain, both of which have a statutory minimum wage.

Mr. Bottomley: The House will welcome the growing number of teenagers who stay on in education and training. Will my hon. Friend make inquiries to ascertain what rates of pay are agreed for people aged 17 and 16 in the Trades Union Congress, in the CBI, in his own Department and in the House of Commons Commission? I believe that he will discover that regulation is not only what is imposed by Government, but that it can be agreements between managers and unions that exclude young people from obtaining the experience on the basis of which they will be hired and taken on.

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend will understand if I do not answer every aspect of his question. I shall certainly look into the point that he raises. It will assist the House as well as my hon. Friend if I say that, in September 1994, there were 2,313 16 to 21-year-olds employed in the former Department of Employment—56 per cent. of them were paid more than £8,000 a year. I shall come back to my hon. Friend, not only on the equivalent figures with regard to education in the combined Department, but on the other aspects that he mentioned.

Mr. Burden: Why should young unemployed people have confidence that the Government have any concern for their welfare or the welfare of anyone in work when Ministers have admitted that, on no fewer than 16,000 occasions in the past five years—there are records to show this—employers have broken the law in relation to notification of redundancies to the Department? On not one occasion have Ministers prosecuted an employer for breaking those laws. How will the abolition of the Department of Employment help to resolve that problem? Will the Government now start insisting that employers have to abide by the laws of this land?

Mr. Squire: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question on the consequences of the abolition of the Department is that there will be no change in terms of the state of the law, which will continue to be implemented as it has in the past. The hon. Gentleman asked his question against a background of a significant improvement in the prospects of young people gaining employment over the past two years. Claimant unemployment for under-25s has fallen by 200,000 over the past two years—a faster rate of decline than for the population in general. As the House knows, but the


Labour party tends to ignore, the rates for youth unemployment in this country remain among the best in Europe.

Agism

Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received concerning agism in employment vacancies. [31790]

Mrs. Gillan: I have not yet received any representations myself but, like my predecessor, I am committed to the campaign for older workers. I commend to the House the excellent publication, "Too old … who says?", which provides advice and guidance to those seeking work. Agism makes no economic sense for individual employers or for the nation.

Mr. Evans: May I add my congratulations to the many other congratulations that my hon. Friend has received on her well-deserved and popular promotion to the Front Bench? My hon. Friend will know that I am extremely concerned about that group of the work force in their 40s and 50s who, through no fault of their own, lost their jobs during the recession and are unable to find work. What incentives and guidelines are the Government giving to employers to ensure that they do not turn their backs on that valuable resource?

Mrs. Gillan: I thank my hon. Friend for his generous remarks.
I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in the subject and the issue of agism. He has already raised with me some individual cases in his constituency. My predecessor successfully raised the profile of older workers but, importantly, with inflation and interest rates lower than for many years, our economic policies are improving everyone's employment prospects.

Dr. Reid: In congratulating—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House is in good spirits today.

Dr. Reid: In congratulating the hon. Lady on her promotion, may I bring to her attention the fact that many older workers are among the long-term unemployed? Will she explain to us in her first outing today why there are now three times as many long-term unemployed as there were when the Tory Government took over in 1979—and do so without assistance from her pal at the side?

Mrs. Gillan: I do not intend, even on my first outing, to take lectures on unemployment from the Labour party, particularly as the levels of unemployment rose quite unacceptably under the last Labour Government—if, indeed, there is anyone in the House who can remember that Government.
I have already mentioned the Government's campaign for older workers, which, with the support of the advisory group on older workers, aims to demonstrate the benefits of policies that allow people of all ages to contribute to their employers' success. The campaign also encourages older workers to be positive about the range of skills and knowledge that they can offer.

Strike Records

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what comparison she has made between the strike record in the United Kingdom and Germany currently and between the United Kingdom and West Germany in 1979. [31791]

Mr. Oppenheim: In 1979, the United Kingdom lost 29.5 million days through strikes—more than 50 times West Germany's total of 0.5 million. In 1993, by contrast, the United Kingdom and the unified Germany each lost 0.6 million days to labour disputes.

Mr. Townsend: I thank my hon. Friend for those interesting and encouraging figures. Does he agree that Britain's improved industrial relations record in the 1980s produced a very good case for abolishing the Department of Employment some years ago?

Mr. Oppenheim: That is an interesting perspective. Many extremely good civil servants worked in the Department of Employment, which was a very good Department. I think that they will go to other Departments and spread around their good work.
My hon. Friend makes another good point. The Government's labour market reforms have led to a revolution in British manufacturing productivity. In the 1960s and 1970s, Britain was anchored at the bottom of the G7 league for growth in manufacturing productivity. In the 1980s and in the 1990s, Britain has been at the top of the G7 league for growth in manufacturing productivity. That is the best way to ensure more and better paid jobs for people.

Training and Enterprise Councils

Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how TEC licensing will improve standards of training; and what assessment she has made of the proportion of TECs currently achieving good standards. [31792]

Mr. Paice: Three-year licences are awarded to training and enterprise councils that meet rigorous standards for performance and capability. All TECs are required to achieve a licence by 1997.

Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that training and retraining are vital in today's society and that they must be worth while, of a high calibre and must help the participants? Is he aware that, although some TECs have failed in some areas, the majority have done a very good job? SOLOTEC in my borough of Bexley has done an excellent job in the past few years.

Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is correct: training on its own is inadequate unless it is of a high calibre. That is why we have concentrated on a range of measures to drive up the performance of our training courses through TECs and it is why we publish performance league tables for all TECs every August. That demonstrates the rate of improvement in many TECs, including SOLOTEC, which I am pleased to congratulate on its success. There is a further range of measures, including funding according to performance, designed to improve the output of TECs.
I make it absolutely clear that the licensing process is extremely rigorous. If TECs do not meet the standards necessary, they will not get a licence and they will not get a contract.

Mr. Barron: The Minister talks about improving standards of training. Did not Coopers and Lybrand's study into the output-related funding of training conclude that the Government have virtually destroyed training provision in this country? Why were the implications of output-related funding not evaluated properly before the scheme went national this financial year?
In view of decisions taken last week, training providers and training and enterprise councils want to know one thing. When the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) was Secretary of State for Employment, she made a £100 million cut in the training budget. There will be training cuts this year and next year as well. Will the training that the Government abolished just prior to their abolition of the Department of Employment be restored?

Mr. Paice: My right hon. Friend will address the TEC national conference on Thursday. She will reassure it of our total support for the role that TECs play and will continue to play in the provision of training. The hon. Gentleman was clearly not listening earlier when I said that training budgets overall have not changed from last year. He identified one specific sector of the training budget—training for work—but overall it has not changed. The evidence is entirely clear on output-related funding. TECs running output-related pilots improved their training output dramatically, and it was entirely logical that they were the way forward for the whole country.

Mr. Gallie: Is my hon. Friend aware of the pick-up in the house building programme recently? Does he share my concern about the lack of basic skills within that industry? What steps can be taken throughout the construction industry, perhaps to reintroduce the traditional apprenticeships of old?

Mr. Paice: I have good news for my hon. Friend. First, the Construction Industry Training Board is responsible for training in that industry. Secondly, it has embarked on the provision of modern apprenticeships, along with many other organisations and employers who this year will make available nearly 50 different vocational modern apprentice-ships to enable a vast range of people to obtain recognised qualifications based on competence testing. That is the way forward to meet the skills needs of the future.

Low Pay

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she is taking to tackle the problem of low pay. [31793]

Mr. Oppenheim: Since 1979, the real take-home pay of a single man in the bottom 10 per cent. of earnings has risen by £27 a week and that of a single woman in the bottom 10 per cent. has risen by £29 a week. We all want pay levels for the less well-off to rise even further but it has to be sustainable, based on improving productivity, efficiency and competitiveness. To suggest that pay can rise just by political diktat without improved productivity is dishonest and deceitful and would undoubtedly cost many people's jobs.

Mr. Jones: I am glad that the Minister has the same fervour and commitment to his policies as the former

Secretary of State for Employment, but in the deregulated wage market of the global economy, what determines the base rate without a minimum wage? Malthus would have said that it was the level at which workers can just survive and do no more than perpetuate their own numbers. What would the Minister say the base rate should be? Is it 50p an hour? How low will the Minister go?

Mr. Oppenheim: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman's base rate should be, but I am glad that he has bothered to turn up for questions today. The only sustainable way to improve people's earning power is to improve their education and training so that they are more productive and can earn more on a sustainable basis. The Labour party's policies are misguided. Even Sir Gordon Borrie, chairman of Labour's Social Justice Commission, wrote in The Guardian recently—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I insist that the hon. Gentleman stops barracking from a sedentary position. Mindless barracking gets the House nowhere. It does not advance the quality of our debate one bit.

Mr. Oppenheim: Sir Gordon Borrie wrote in The Guardian:
The interesting question is at what level a minimum wage should be set. Too high a figure will cost jobs; too low a figure will not be worth having.
I could not agree more. No amount of waffle and double-talk can hide Labour's attempts to deceive the less well-off into thinking that there is an easy, cost-free way to raise pay. There is not. Labour is deceiving the less well-off.

Mr. Forman: In the interests of maintaining Britain's global competitiveness—a very important national interest—does my hon. Friend agree that, in so far as it is necessary to use social transfers to support those on low pay, family credit and similar forms of benefit support are much better than the minimum wage, which could distort and prejudice our competitive position?

Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The best way to improve living standards for everyone, particularly the less well-off, is to improve the productivity, efficiency and competitiveness of the British economy. It is because we are now so much more efficient and productive than we were in 1979 that pay at all levels has risen substantially, not least for the less well-off.

Ms Rachel Squire: Does the Minister agree that it is waffle and double-talk to oppose a minimum wage while the Government spend £2.4 billion subsidising sweatshop pay through the benefits system? Does the Minister further agree that it is an insult to the people of Dunfermline and west Fife and of many other communities that the Government's only reward, when there is a desperate need for decently paid jobs, is to spend another £75 million on an additional top-up earnings benefit, rather than provide productive work?

Mr. Oppenheim: One of the biggest myths in the Opposition's campaign for a minimum wage is that it would get rid of all in-work benefits, yet the Opposition spokesman was told recently by Andrew Dilnott, head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, that even a minimum wage of £8 per hour would leave many people claiming income support. If it is now Opposition policy to get rid of all in-work benefits, they should say so.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 July. [31811]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Sir Michael Neubert: Has my right hon. Friend had time to study yesterday's debate in Hansard—and not just my speech? Is he aware that, on the very day when the Leader of the Opposition was refusing to put a figure on a national minimum wage, his Social Security spokesman was assuming a rate of about £3 or £3.50 in the House?

The Prime Minister: I have not yet read Hansard, but clearly I had better look at it very carefully, and I will. I did not know that which my hon. Friend stated, but if it is the case, I strongly suspect that the Leader of the Opposition knows that a minimum wage is economic nonsense but that he regards it as politically expedient. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make clear one day precisely the figure that he has in mind; he certainly owes it to the public to do so. Perhaps he will soon tell us.

Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree in principle that Members of Parliament should disclose their earnings from outside consultancies?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that a Select Committee is examining that matter. The Committee has reported, and I will do it the courtesy of awaiting its report.

Mr. Blair: That was the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman's own Committee. Does he accept the principle or not: yes or no?

The Prime Minister: I told the right hon. Gentleman that I asked a Select Committee to examine the issue. When it has done so, I will deal with the matter.

Mr. Blair: Is the Prime Minister really saying that the Committee cannot come up with an answer in eight weeks, or is it just a coincidence that the main recommendation on which it cannot agree a definition happens to be the main recommendation to which Conservative Members object? Is it not time that the Prime Minister asserted his authority? The Nolan report is the right hon. Gentleman's report. He commissioned it and said that he accepted it, and he should ensure that the Government implement it in full without further delay.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's attempt to use this report as a political football is pretty transparent and pretty shabby. He knows that the Select Committee has made excellent progress. It has met 14 times in 14 days—more intensively than any Select Committee has met before. It is still considering these

matters. It will report and then the House will make its decision, as I have said from the outset, on matters relating to Back Benchers.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 July. [31812]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend recall that some 10 years ago the newspapers were obsessed with the money supply, trade figures and days lost through strikes? Is it not a tribute to this Government that the number of days lost through strikes last year was only 1 per cent. of the number lost in 1979? Is not the Leader of the Opposition somewhat naive to claim that the unions no longer have an armlock over his party, when old Labour is still waiting in the wings to support strikes and organise "boyocotts"?

The Prime Minister: As a wise old policeman once said, there is no need for an armlock when the suspect comes along quietly. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has already offered the unions most of what they want—the social chapter, a minimum wage, new trade union rights—while his Front-Bench team enjoys the sponsorship of all trade unions. I think that, almost without exception, his Front-Bench team is sponsored in one form or another.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree that, at this precise moment, the United Nations' ultimate will is being tested by the Bosnian Serbs in Srebrenica and that, on this occasion, if that will fails the United Nations' mission in the front-line areas of Bosnia is likely to fail with it?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is clearly referring to the situation in Srebrenica. I can certainly confirm to him and the House that the situation is very serious. UN commanders on the ground have asked the Bosnian Serbs to release the UN protection force's troops whom they have been holding and to halt their offensive.
I can confirm to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman that that has not yet happened and that, at the direct request of UN commanders on the ground, close air support operations have been carried out by NATO aircraft near Srebrenica. It was in their operational judgment that air support was necessary for the protection of the contingent in Srebrenica as a result of the fact that the Bosnian Serbs had ignored the clear warnings given. I believe that the UN commanders on the ground were right. They deserve and will receive the full backing of this Government for their action.
The situation in Srebrenica is certainly very serious indeed at the moment. Unless the warring parties are prepared soon to indicate that they are prepared to return to some form of discussion to reach a political settlement, there is no doubt that continuing fighting will put the future presence of the United Nations forces at risk.

Mr. Robert Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the widespread dismay among scientists and in universities at the transfer of the research councils to the Department of Trade and Industry? Will he confirm that his Government will continue to value fundamental


research? Will he confirm that the research councils will continue to sustain the dual support system of university funding? Will he undertake to reconsider this decision, which abruptly overturns a policy developed after widespread consultation and announced in a White Paper only two years ago?

The Prime Minister: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the role of the Office of Science and Technology is unchanged and that it will continue with the role that it has had over recent years. The transfer implies no reduction in our commitment to fundamental research or to the dual support system, and our policies remain as set out in the White Paper two years or so ago. That will continue, as will the technology foresight process.
The purpose of the transfer is to strengthen—not weaken, but to strengthen—the contribution of science, engineering and technology to long-term wealth creation. With that in mind, the office is best situated in the Department of Trade and Industry.

Mr. Dowd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 July. [31813]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Dowd: Following the sorry spectacle of the Tory leadership election and the worn-out ritual of the reshuffle, may I congratulate the Prime Minister on retaining his post in the Government now run by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)? When are we to be told what the First Secretary of State's responsibilities are? When are we to have an opportunity to ask the First Secretary of State oral questions? Why after five years has the Prime Minister decided that he needs a deputy? If he does need such an insurance policy, why should the taxpayers have to foot the bill?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the First Secretary will support me across the full range of Government policies. He will have direct control over Government policy on competitiveness and deregulation, and he will answer questions in the House. He has a reputation for straight talking, as has the deputy leader of the Labour party. Indeed, both my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman have a reputation for robustly attacking the Labour leader, and I expect that to continue.

Mr. Yeo: May I return to the crucial subject of the minimum wage? Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who support it must be so desperate to suck up to their trade union paymasters that they do not care how many British jobs they destroy in the process? Does he also agree that any political party that advocates a minimum wage but cannot agree on what it should be is utterly unfit and unready for government?

The Prime Minister: There seems to be some uncertainty and dithering about the minimum wage on the Opposition Front Bench. The Labour leader smiles; he may well smile, but I should rather hear an answer to the question "What will the minimum wage be?" than see him smile.
The Labour leader has said:
Econometric models indicate a potential jobs impact.

What he means is that there will be job losses as a result of a minimum wage. The deputy Labour leader—engaging in the straight talking to which I referred a moment ago—has said there would be a jobs
shake-out … any silly fool knew that.
What he means is that there will be job losses. I know that; the right hon. Gentlemen know that; and the whole House knows that. As soon as we are told what the minimum wage will be—a point on which the Labour leader dithers and cannot make up his mind—we shall be able to calculate how many people will lose their jobs.

Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 July. [31814]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. MacShane: Will the Prime Minister join our Commonwealth partners, Australia and New Zealand, in their opposition to the nuclear bomb tests in the Pacific?

The Prime Minister: No, I will not.

Mr. Dykes: If my right hon. Friend has time in the course of his busy day, will he send warm congratulations to the RUC in Northern Ireland on the sturdy way in which it has stood up to the wilder elements among the Orangemen? Is it not about time that these provocative and silly historical marches were banned?

The Prime Minister: I congratulate the RUC on its restraint and professionalism in dealing with those incidents—and, indeed, with other recent incidents. I believe that it deserves the whole-hearted support of all hon. Members and all responsible leaders in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 July. [31815]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Jamieson: Does the Prime Minister recall making a solemn promise in March 1993 to take action in regard to spiralling water charges in the south-west, where prices have doubled in the past two years? After two years of pondering the problem, will he tell the House how he will help consumers in the south-west—or is that another matter that he has referred to the Deputy Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will ask his right hon. and hon. Friends whether they will cease pressing the Government to maintain the high standards of cleanliness and improvement in those waters that is giving rise to the charges. Perhaps the support given by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for European directives will indicate that he does not wish us to disobey the directives with which we are dealing. We have sought to cut charges by rearranging the speed of


the capital expenditure that is taking place to assist people in the west country; that is the only way in which it is practicable to help.

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 July. [31816]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend contrast his policy of improving services on the Northern line through increased investment with that of Jimmy Knapp of disrupting those services?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but there is a wider point. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) spoke up for water consumers. Why do he and his colleagues not speak up for rail passengers? Why are Opposition Members happy to support strikes on British Rail while they parade around claiming to be in favour of the consumer? The reality is that the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers' call for a strike on the underground—[Interruption.] I do not know which Opposition Front-Bench Member shouted then, but perhaps he or she is sponsored by the RMT. The RMT's call for a strike on the underground will damage the progress that has been made by London Underground and will cause unnecessary

misery and disruption to passengers. I return to the central point. How can the Opposition claim to speak for consumers while they ignore rail passengers and leave them to face the strikes without a single word of condemnation from their Front Benchers?

Ministerial Visits

Mr. Donohoe: To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to visit Ayrshire. [31817]

The Prime Minister: I have no current plans to do so.

Mr. Donohoe: I am sure that the people of Ayrshire will be glad of that. May I turn the Prime Minister's attention to the national health service and, in particular, to Ayrshire and Arran health board's idea of taking all its services into the private sector and allowing companies from the United States to come in purely on the basis of profit? What has the Prime Minister got to say about that? How can he possibly say that the health service is safe in his hands?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows, or should know, of the increased resources for the health service, the 1 million-plus extra patients treated by the health service and the better services being provided by the health service. He seeks yet again to trade politically on a health service that he knows is improving and is providing a better service than at any stage in the past—and a better service than any Labour Government could provide for the people of this country.

French Nuclear Testing

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to ask leave under Standing Order No. 20 to discuss a matter of definite public importance, namely French nuclear testing in the Pacific. You will know, Madam Speaker, that this is a genuine and meant request for a debate, and not posturing or flag-waving. I have sent you a copy of a debate from 2 July 1973, in which I moved the motion on behalf of the official Opposition:
That this House deplores the failure of Her Majesty's Government to make adequate protests to the Government of France for ignoring the decision of the International Court at The Hague on nuclear testing, and supports the two Commonwealth Governments of Australia and New Zealand in their opposition to impending tests in the Pacific."—[Official Report, 2 July 1973; Vol. 859, c. 47.]
I would have preferred this request for an emergency debate to have come from the Opposition Front Bench, rather than from me as a Back-Bench Member.
As the year 2000 approaches, it is desperate that a western European country should, without consultation of any kind, unilaterally impose a potentially catastrophic act on colonial territory on the other side of the world. In the south Pacific, an indigenous people's opinion has been brushed aside, and a hard-won status quo on the most dangerous of all weapons in a dangerous world has been brushed aside with it.
That France may not care about its image abroad is one thing. It is another thing altogether that a country should defy an international moratorium and, by baleful example, encourage others to do so.
It is this defiance that makes it so urgent that the House of Commons should make a judgment this very week. As one of the four remaining Labour Members who voted to go into the Common Market with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), I am entitled

to say that France's European allies have shamefully underestimated the issue, in contrast to the loud and impotent outrage in Australia, New Zealand and Polynesia.
The matter is important. An apologist for France said on the "Today" programme that not one fish would be harmed. That is arrant nonsense. Apart from anything else, those who cause explosions in coral atolls had better be careful what they do. Professor Ghillean Prance, the director of Kew gardens, is only one of the witnesses who says that there is interbreeding between the coral atolls of the entire Pacific area—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now getting into a debate instead of making an application to me, and his time is up. However, I have listened most carefully to what he has said, and I have to give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED

PARDON FOR SOLDIERS OF THE GREAT WAR

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, supported by Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. John Hume, Mr. Ken Maginnis, Rev. Ian Paisley, Mr. Allan Rogers, Mr. Alex Salmond, Sir David Steel, Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mr. Paul Flynn, presented a Bill to provide for the granting of pardons to soldiers of the British Empire Forces executed during the Great War of 1914 to 1919 following conviction for offences of cowardice, desertion or attempted desertion, disobedience, quitting post, violence, sleeping at post, throwing away arms or striking a superior officer; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July, and to be printed. [Bill 161.]

Points of Order

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to raise a point of order for the second time, but a Minister who admitted in private having misled the House and misrepresented a Member of the House yesterday, has refused to apologise publicly for an offence committed in public. I say that especially because the BBC allowed the untruth to be repeated on the radio this morning. It was suggested that I had acted dishonourably, so it is important to me that the matter be put right publicly. I ask you, Madam Speaker, as the custodian of Back-Bench interests, to remind the Secretary of State for Wales, who is a comparatively new Member of the House, that he should respect the courtesies of the House and tell the truth.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. William Hague): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. As the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) knows, I have already written to her on the matter. I received a suggestion yesterday that she would seek to raise a particular matter during Welsh questions. Having looked into the matter, I accept the fact that the suggestion came not from her but from one of her constituents. She is right to expect an apology from me, and I have already given her one. Equally, her constituent was right to expect that she would be in the Chamber to represent his interests. Other constituents throughout Wales were also right to expect their Members of Parliament to be here to represent their interests. Welsh Labour Members have brought nothing but ridicule upon themselves by their failure to be here to do what they are elected to do.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you help me concerning the protocol of giving an apology in the House as the Secretary of State for Wales has just done? Is it appropriate and proper that, having unreservedly apologised, he should then abuse the House by going off into a diatribe about something that has nothing to do with the matter in hand?

Madam Speaker: We must leave that matter where it is at the moment, but I expect apologies in public if some misunderstanding has taken place, as obviously happened in this case. We must leave it there now.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As a member of the Select Committee examining the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, I ask whether you have seen reports in the press today suggesting that Government policy is to be reversed, because Ministers are balking at the notion of increasing public subsidy for Eurorail, which is run by the Prime Minister's friend Lord Parkinson. Those press reports are potentially damaging to the work of the Select Committee. If there is a change in Government policy surely the Secretary of State for Transport should come to the House and explain exactly what the position is.

Madam Speaker: I make no comments on press reports, but of course I expect that whenever there is an

important change in Government policy, on whatever issue, a statement should be made from the Dispatch Box so that we are all clear about it.

Mr. Alan Simpson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On a similar matter reported in the press today, there was a suggestion that the change in Government policy—

Madam Speaker: Order. Ministers may comment on press reports, but since I entered the House more than 20 years ago I have made it a rule, both as a Back Bencher and as Speaker, not to comment on press reports, so the House must not ask me to do that now. If there is a point of order for me as Speaker to deal with I shall deal with it, but I do not want to hear about press reports.

Mr. Simpson: I intended, Madam Speaker, to ask for a statement to be made to the House about whether there is to be a change in Government policy on the imposition of tax on church bells. The House wants to understand whether that is part of a sleaze story about Government bonging or whether another political clanger has been dropped, so we would like to know whether the Secretary of State will make a statement to the House.

Madam Speaker: An amusing comment and a good try, but not really a point of order.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it really in order that there should be a statement on press reports that are quite false, because on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, we in north-west Kent asked a question and got a clear answer from the Ministers that these press reports are rubbish?

Madam Speaker: That is why I never comment on press reports. I think that that is a very good policy to adopt.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Madam Speaker: With permission, I will put together the motions on statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c),

ROADS AND BRIDGES (SCOTLAND)

That the Roads (Transitional Powers) (Scotland) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1476) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

MERCHANT SHIPPING

That the Fishing Vessels (Certification of Deck Officers and Engineer Officers) (Amendment) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1428) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the Merchant Shipping (Certification of Deck and Marine Engineer Officers) (Amendment) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1429) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Question agreed to.

Railway Communities (Job Creation)

Mr. Hugh Bayley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the creation of alternative job opportunities in communities that have lost a substantial number of railway industry jobs since the passage of the Railways Act 1993; to empower Ministers to provide direct assistance to former railway industry employees seeking alternative employment; to encourage inward investment; to promote new business start-ups in railway communities and to provide new infrastructure for business premises in these communities; and for connected purposes.
I should remind the House that I am sponsored by one of the rail unions, RMT, but I speak today on behalf of many of my constituents in my union and others who are affected by rail privatisation.
Later today, on an Opposition motion, the House will debate the merits or otherwise of rail privatisation. I hope that I do not need to tell the House where I stand on that matter. My Bill does not argue for or against privatisation of the railways. It simply acknowledges that the House passed the Railways Act 1993, that the Act is being implemented and that it is causing a significant reduction in employment on the railways. My Bill seeks to reduce the impact on railway workers who have been made redundant and on the economies of railway towns.
There are quite a number of precedents for the Government taking action to replace jobs that have come about as a result of industrial restructuring. In 1984, the Government established British Coal Enterprise Ltd. to bring alternative employment to areas affected by pit closures. Since 1984, British Coal has made 143,300 people redundant. In the same period, British Coal Enterprise Ltd. says that it has created 123,600 new jobs. Some 57,244 jobs have gone to ex-miners, and another 66,000 to other people in mining communities. Similar programmes have been introduced in the steel industry.
When British Rail closed its Swindon works in the 1980s, the British Rail board invested £1.3 million in establishing an enterprise agency to bring new jobs to the town. I would not argue for a new agency for the railways if there was no need. Rail privatisation is still in its early stages, but already British Rail has made 13,600 workers redundant and thousands of other jobs have been lost in private sector rail manufacturing industries. In my own constituency, for example, since 1992 there have been 2,300 job losses. In 1992 there were 4,700 jobs. Since then, British Rail has declared 650 redundancies, and the private train builder, ABB, has made all 1,650 of its employees redundant.
Other railway jobs in York are at risk, too. British Rail's York office of the civil engineering design group will be privatised in a matter of weeks. The York office of a BR subsidiary, Signalling Control UK, is also to be privatised this year. So, too, are the two York-based

infrastructure maintenance units, and the two York-based British Rail track renewal units. The east coast main line franchise is due to be let at the end of this year or the beginning of next year.
York needs help. We have already lost some 2,300 jobs as a result of rail privatisation. York is not an assisted area. We do not qualify for EU regional grants, for instance, under objective 2.
On the practicalities of my Bill, since 1984 British Coal Enterprise Ltd. has invested about £165 million. Roughly £100 million of that has gone on economic regeneration in coalfield communities and £65 million on the resettlement of miners in other jobs. In round terms, the 120,000 jobs created by British Coal Enterprise Ltd. have cost £1,350 each. At the present rate of attrition of railway jobs, the railways need to invest £10 million or £15 million a year, assuming that the cost of replacing railway jobs is broadly the same as that of replacing jobs in coalfield communities. It is not a great sum of money compared with the £700 million that railway privatisation has cost already.
British Coal Enterprise Ltd. is a subsidiary of British Coal. I suggest that the British Rail board could and should establish a subsidiary, which might be called British Rail Enterprise. Of course, there is a chance that this Bill will not reach the statute book, but there is no reason why the Government cannot act without legislation. There is no statutory basis for British Coal Enterprise Ltd.
Rail privatisation has come about as a direct result of Government policy. Large-scale job losses in the railway industry have come about as a direct consequence of rail privatisation. The Government have an obligation to do as they have done in other industries that have been restructured as a result of Government policy, which is to invest in alternative employment in the areas most affected by the Government's rail privatisation policies.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hugh Bayley, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Alan Williams, Mr. Alan Howarth, Mr. Malcolm Wicks, Mr. Alex Carlile and Mr. Keith Hill.

RAILWAY COMMUNITIES (JOB CREATION)

Mr. Hugh Bayley accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the creation of alternative job opportunities in communities that have lost a substantial number of railway industry jobs since the passage of the Railways Act 1993; to empower Ministers to provide direct assistance to former railway industry employees seeking alternative employment; to encourage inward investment; to promote new business start-ups in railway communities and to provide new infrastructure for business premises in these communities; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July 1995, and to be printed. [Bill 160.]

Opposition Day

[17TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Rail Network

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I have to announce that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the impact of the privatisation threat on investment in the rail network and on deteriorating staff morale; and reiterates the need to retain Railtrack as a crucial public service in order to maintain and develop a co-ordinated national transport policy.
This debate is intended as a triple opportunity. First, it is an opportunity for the new Secretary of State, whom I very much welcome to the debate, to state his position on the privatisation of the rail system and on Railtrack in particular. Clearly, the House will want to know whether he shares the enthusiasm and optimism—indeed, the over-optimism—of his predecessors. I note with interest his contribution to a debate on public transport on 23 March 1990, which was introduced by his late colleague Mr. Robert Adley, whose views on privatisation we all recall. The Secretary of State said:
more people are writing to their Members of Parliament—certainly those in London—complaining about conditions … they expect part of the greater wealth that has been created to be diverted to the improvement, modernisation and expansion of public transport in London, the south-east and in other parts of the country."—[Official Report, 23 March 1990; Vol.169, c.1395.]
In a few moments I shall be able to demonstrate that that simply has not happened. Let us hope that, now that he is in the elevated position of driver in the cab, he may be able to change the way in which British Rail and the rail system are driven.
Secondly, of course, this is an opportunity to help the Labour party off the fence, not just on the subject of strikes, on which they will no doubt want to make a statement, but on the future of the rail network. It is an opportunity to get them on board for a proper policy for the public ownership of the rail network.
Thirdly, and most importantly, the debate is a wonderful opportunity for Back Benchers on both sides of the House to express the concern, frustration and anger that our constituents are expressing to us about the way in which our great rail network is being dismantled before our very eyes.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: My constituents are annoyed and frustrated about the rail unions, which are determined to wreck their travel arrangements. What does the hon. Gentleman have to say about that, or is he an apologist like Labour's Front Benchers?

Mr. Tyler: Of course not. I am sure that hon. Members understand the frustration and anger of the staff in all parts of the rail system who are seeing their industry being dismantled. They are also seeing a huge waste of money which could be invested in better conditions for them, including better pay, as well as in improving the service. However, that is no excuse for taking industrial action and

I agree that it is not helpful to the rail system, the rail customers or rail staff to take precipitate action—as, indeed, some other staff have made clear in the past few days. No doubt the spokesmen for the Labour party will wish to dissociate themselves from this industrial action as clearly and precisely as we do.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind me asking whether it occurs to him that, when negotiations between employers and employees are taking place, the most useless and unhelpful thing that someone can do in the House—especially when he is not party to those negotiations—is to express his views in the terms that the hon. Gentleman has just used?

Mr. Tyler: When the hon. Lady's party was in government, I recall many previous occasions on which Labour Ministers did precisely that. I see no reason not to now.
We believe that a publicly controlled, publicly directed public service is not inherently inefficient. It can be extremely efficient. In particular, I pray in aid the Post Office. As a student of history, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that the Post Office was taken into public ownership by that great radical Charles I in 1635. After the disturbances of the civil war, it was re-established as a public service by Charles II by Act of Parliament in 1660.
There is no inherent reason why a useful public service should not continue to be of very considerable use to the public if it remains publicly controlled. However, what we cannot do with a modern railway system is to play trains with it. At present, our rail network in the British Isles is being disintegrated in a socially, economically and environmentally damaging way. No other country in western Europe would dream of doing that at this juncture because there are great opportunities on offer to an efficient public rail system. If it is to become a wholly private concern, even if regulated, we can look to what has happened in the other former utilities as a guide to what would inevitably happen to the railways.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on what British Airways was like—a sheer embarrassment to this country—while it was nationalised? Does he think that it is purely coincidental that, as a privatised entity, it is now considered to be the world's favourite airline?

Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman selects but one previous utility. He should consider what ICI says about the cost of electricity. Privatisation does not necessarily result in greater competition or more effective management of a great public service. What is clear about British Rail is that the substantial improvements that were made in the 1970s and 1980s are being put at risk. I know that a number of hon. Members wish to contribute to this short debate, so I should like to make some progress.
Clearly, under the Government's present plans, the franchising director is only partly accountable to the public. Indeed, it is only when there is uproar in the House and among all the parties over issues such as through ticketing, that one is able to influence the way in which the passenger service requirements are implemented.
The role of Opraf is not to be a servant of public policy; it simply provides an opportunity for Ministers to pass the buck and put at arm's length their responsibility to the


travelling public. No one is confident that standards will be met, let alone improved. Similarly, the price cap is hardly an effective and sensitive influence on the rail system.
We recognise that the core of an effective rail network is the track—the infrastructure—and therefore Railtrack. I shall concentrate for a few minutes on the role of Railtrack because I and my colleagues believe that it is the secret to the success of our future public transport system. The core must be publicly controlled and directed, and there must be a guarantee of homogeneity in the whole operation.
Privatisation has placed intolerable burdens on Railtrack. They include the corporate plan, which was due this summer—indeed, now—but which is still not forthcoming, and the timetable for modernisation of the west coast main line and the contract for signalling which are to be in place by the end of the year, which is highly unlikely; and enabling European Passenger Services to operate a public service to Manchester and Scotland through the channel tunnel by 1 January 1996. Again, that is a strain. It is asking the impossible while steps are being taken to create new structures throughout Railtrack and the operating companies.
If Railtrack were in private hands, which would be a fundamental fault because it would split the infrastructure from the management of trains and divide responsibility for their operation among many operators, it would fly in the face of the experience of all other member states in the European Union and, indeed, most other developed countries. Accountability would disappear.
Meanwhile, customers and staff are bewildered and confused by the way in which the system is being carved up. As the House knows, there are already some 100 bits to the jigsaw. The little green book, which some hon. Members may have seen, contains the most amazing array of maps which it is extremely difficult to follow. I had occasion to wish to write a complaint about a delayed train a couple of days ago, and it took several minutes to wade through the document to find out to whom I should complain.
Let us consider Gatwick, which is the means of entry into this country for a large number of visitors. Gatwick Airport Services Ltd. runs the station on a lease from Railtrack but there are five train operators going in and out of the station—Gatwick Express, InterCity Cross Country, Network SouthCentral, Thames Trains and Thameslink. Anyone who has been there recently and shared the experience of some visitors who are unfamiliar with our curious signs and curious language and our curious lack of anyone else's language will have discovered that it is impossible to find the appropriate train. Staff simply do not know what services are being provided by other companies. Hon. Members should test it for themselves—I bet that Ministers have not done so recently, unlike one of my colleagues.
The plethora of different information at Gatwick makes it impossible. One enters an apocalyptic world. For example, indicators are non-existent at platform level, and if one goes up to the higher level, one is in danger of missing one's connection. Nobody knows what is happening. With two sets of loudspeakers and conflicting information, it is impossible to know what is going on.
Let us consider another example. I have here a note on the railway services serving a particular constituency in the north-west of England which I visited yesterday and this morning—Littleborough and Saddleworth. The services provided in that constituency are, according to British Rail, partly
a joint venture between Regional Railways North West and Greater Manchester PTE … and also between Regional Railways North East and West Yorkshire PTE".
The number of companies is so confusing that even the staff do not know who is responsible for the various services. In the past few days, my colleague in that constituency has conducted a survey of passenger opinion and he was not surprised to find that the huge majority of the travelling public in that area believe that services are getting worse as a result of the threat of privatisation. They do not share others' enthusiasm for that change. That survey revealed that nine out of 10 passengers believe that rail privatisation will cause services to deteriorate still further.
It is not just a question of reliability or punctuality, but, of course, of safety. As has been apparent from last week's report from British Rail and Railtrack's answers to questions put in previous weeks, the disintegration of the rail system is causing a reduction in concern about safety. Sadly, recent examples of that may underline that point.
I have already referred to the low morale of the staff. I am not suggesting that that is the sole reason for the current industrial unrest, but it is an important factor. That sense of frustration is not improved by the swathe of consultants, lawyers, accountants and merchant bankers who are picking over the intended structure of the RT operation.
We believe that the cost so far of privatisation is well in excess of £0.5 billion, about £550 million, and others have suggested today that that cost will increase to £700 million by the end of the year. How much better for that investment to be put into improved rail services—perhaps the channel tunnel rail link, which is of considerable importance to many hon. Members who represent the south-east, let alone to the future of freight services all over the country. I note that several Conservative Members have nodded in agreement.
As I said earlier, the background to the problem is that in 1992–93, investment in British Rail, excluding channel tunnel investment, stood at just over £1 billion. In the current year, that investment has fallen to £600 million. The danger is that, once that slide becomes even more exaggerated, it will be extremely difficult to make that investment level, let alone increase it.
Like that other monstrosity, the poll tax, rail privatisation will have to be dismantled, but at a great cost to the taxpayer. That will be a disgraceful waste of resources, which should be spent on investment in a better service.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Gentleman, who speaks on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, is speaking against rail privatisation in almost an evangelical way. I would like to know when the change took place in the Liberal party's approach to rail privatisation, because some of us were opposed to it in principle long before we came to the House. We all know that the Liberal party was in favour of rail privatisation before the general election. The hon. Gentleman has given the impression that his party has always been against that policy, but when did that change take place? When did the Liberals discover the reality of privatisation?

Mr. Tyler: After that diatribe, I am not sure that I should accept the hon. Gentleman's compliment about evangelical fervour. If the hon. Gentleman had attended other debates on transport, he would know only too well that we have always supported the retention of the Railtrack infrastructure.

Mr. Skinner: No.

Mr. Tyler: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not understand the difference. If he travelled as often by rail as I do perhaps he would understand it. Railtrack controls the major infrastructure of the system and the Liberal Democrats have always supported it as a public service. If the hon. Gentleman ceases to heckle me, I will repeat that we see an opportunity—

Mr. Skinner: Accept the truth.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I wish to hear the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) who has the floor, and not others who do not have it.

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Liberal Democrats have always welcomed the possibility of private investment in individual services because we believe that such private finance will offer real benefits to those services. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bolsover may like to stay for slightly longer in the debate than he usually does and hear what the Labour Front-Bench spokesmen have to say, because he will find that they support me on that subject.

Mr. Skinner: I was here yesterday; you were missing.

Mr. Tyler: Railtrack is being sold off as an afterthought of the Government. As Christian Wolmar said in The Independent a few days ago, that was
a sharp—and unannounced—change in policy. Railtrack privatisation did not even figure in the 1992 Conservative manifesto".
I do not know whether it figured in the Secretary of State's election address; perhaps he will tell us later. Mr. Wolmar continued:
It also ties the Government to the type of rail privatisation … which has been widely criticised as unworkable … it seems the quick buck has been too much of an attraction—it may be a fatal one.
I suspect that that will not be the case immediately, but in the long run it will undoubtedly be one of the ways in which the public will regard the Government as more interested in private profit than in public service.

Mr. Skinner: Like you were.

Mr. Tyler: There is an argument, which no doubt Conservative Members will suggest is at the root of the issue, that other privatisations have worked, and they may quote examples. Neither assertion is correct.
In the first place, there has been no privatisation of a rail system in the world on that format, and certainly none that has been successful. Indeed, as I said earlier, there is considerable doubt about the effectiveness and the profitability, in terms of the overall public profitability, of the privatisation of many of the other utilities. I quote, for example, the opinion of Mr. Edward Brady of Imperial Chemical Industries in the Financial Times only 10 days ago. He said:
We are paying … £50 million a year for electricity at Runcorn, compared with £30 million in April 1991, before the privatisation".
Tell him that privatisation is a wild success.
Similarly, the argument that other countries have taken that route is simply untrue. Ministers may have been deluded by comparisons made by Conservative central office, but unfortunately, Conservative central office remains woefully behind the times until the new incumbent reaches his desk. I hope that no hon. Members will quote the last brief prepared by Conservative central office; it is woefully out of date on all subjects, including the opinions of Opposition parties. No doubt, now that the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) is there, there will be a shake-up.
Sweden does operate a rail network with separate track and operators, but both halves are publicly owned and publicly controlled. It is we who should learn the lessons from abroad. At a recent channel tunnel initiative seminar organised by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, Professor Reid of Birkbeck university described how French planning uses private and public utility projects, and he described how 51 per cent. publicly owned Societe Economie Mixtes—forgive my French—operates. It is obviously a good model that we could follow in this country with advantage.
We Liberal Democrats have a non-doctrinaire acceptance of mixed public and private investment partnerships. We believe that we should have a non-sectarian interest in seeking secure, well-planned, well-prioritised investment in railways, and we shall have no misgivings about maintaining a 49 per cent. private investment if that is found to be useful in the long term in a publicly owned and publicly controlled Railtrack.
However, I do not understand, I do not believe that the House will understand and certainly the travelling public do not understand, where the Labour party stands on that matter. There appear to be varying theses. The gospel according to St. Dunfermline, St. Holborn, St. Oldham and even St. Sedgefield appears to vary day by day.
I notice that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has joined us. I am delighted to see him, because I can quote back to him something that he said on BBC Radio 4 on 10 January 1995:
If you're asking me to set out at this moment in time exactly what we would do, I cannot sensibly give that answer".
I hope that this afternoon he may give that answer, either sensibly or insensibly. I shall return to the Labour party later.
The Tories are obviously split too. Many of them share and have expressed the misgivings of the late Robert Adley, who, as the House will recall, described privatisation as the poll tax on wheels. The enthusiasm for his Conservative successor in Christchurch resulted in a huge Liberal Democrat swing and victory.
Our plans for Railtrack are simple. We want to see the basic railway infrastructure in public hands. Once that statement has been made and once the Labour party come on board, we believe that it is highly unlikely that the Government will be able to pursue, helter-skelter, their present plan to privatise Railtrack by April next year. It will not be an attractive proposition for the City, as there are far better things for the institutions to invest their money in. Why should they take on the liabilities of Railtrack when they can see much more interesting projects in which to invest their money?
The trading value of Railtrack has plummeted since it was first suggested as a privatisation plum. It was originally suggested that it might be £6.5 billion, but now


the figure has fallen way down and is more in the region of £1.5 billion—even before the declaration of principle from the Labour party, which I hope and expect this afternoon.
If Railtrack is privatised before the next election, we would support any steps necessary to re-acquire a majority holding at the issue price or the market price, whichever was the less, so there would be no profit to anyone who invests on that risk basis. If the sell-off is postponed, as it is likely to be, there is no cost. The cost to the nation and the Government is nil. That is why it is so important to make that statement now.
The repurchase can be spread over a number of years by means of a bond so that it would not suddenly be a blip in the public sector borrowing requirement over the first year or two of the lifetime of a Parliament. It will then be open to the Government—generally, nationally, regionally and locally—to determine access charges and investment priorities in furtherance of other priorities.
I hope that the Labour party's position will be clarified by today's debate and we are glad to give Labour Members the opportunity to do so. The Labour party's current plans are confused, confusing, and certainly counter-productive to achieving progress. We know that the Labour party faces dissention from among the ranks of its traditional supporters in the unions. A few days ago the RMT president said:
The Labour Party should understand and commit themselves in government to a railway, publicly owned, publicly accountable and run in the public interest.
Proper forward planning and an expansionist budget would
achieve the fully integrated transport system this country needs.
However, the Labour party's transport policy has yet to be hammered out. As "Rail Privatisation News" recently reported:
When Rail Privatisation News suggested to Party insiders that a commitment to keep Railtrack in the public sector would be both electorally popular and appease the Party's left wing membership, the response was that 'these things are settled in the Leader's office'".
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is listening intently—I hope that he is taking due note as he may need to make representations.

Mr. Skinner: As I was earlier trying to explain to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, the Labour party has a long tradition of being in favour of public ownership of the railways. When we get back into power, we shall take back the railways. If it was left to me, I should take them back without compensation, and would not give a penny piece of compensation.

Mr. Tyler: I see that the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who is listening intently to the rebellion in his ranks, is amused by that statement.
I believe that this afternoon, by endorsing our guarantee to the travelling public to retain Railtrack as a public service, the Labour party could give one signal and, by so doing, avert the derailment.
I know that other hon. Members wish to contribute, so I shall be brief. In conclusion, let us heed the words of John Welsby, the chairman and chief executive of British Rail, who, last week, in his statement at the front of the annual report, said:

investment in the existing railway is not at a satisfactory level, and will not sustain the industry in the long term.
We should mark his words. He continued:
It is important that fragmentation is not allowed to become an obstacle to worthwhile investment".
I submit to the House that they are wise words from the people who carry real responsibility for the rail system in this country. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will support us and them tonight.

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'believes that privatisation offers the best opportunity for reversing the historic decline suffered by the railway system under nationalisation; and further believes that the privatisation of Railtrack offers the best future for Railtrack, and for passengers and freight users, by making greater use of private sector skills in managing the network and in providing greater scope for private capital investment in the upgrading of the railway system.'.
It is interesting to watch the Labour Front Bench gradually fill up as the debate develops. That is obviously occurring because of the severe challenge to the Labour party's position from the Liberal Benches. If I were the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), I would be shaking in my shoes in view of the skilful way in which the Liberal party's stance has changed. While the right hon. Member has been learning Tory phrases, pretending to adopt Tory values and borrowing—I could say "stealing", but that would have no place in the modern Labour party—our clothes, he is being outflanked on the left by the Liberals.
It used to be said that the centre ground was the battlefield of British politics. But as the Labour party has grabbed at our coat tails and tried to scuttle to the right, the Liberals have occupied the vacant turf to the left. The Liberal Party is now the only party that is prepared to stand up for nationalisation. Perhaps it is merely paving the way for even closer union between the Labour and Liberal parties, or perhaps it is simply nostalgia for the halcyon days of the Lib-Lab pact—I leave it to hon. Members to judge.
The motion moved by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Tyler) refers to
the privatisation threat on investment in the rail network".
Let us examine the facts, as we have done in the past. During the period in office of the last Labour Government—who were sustained in office by the votes of the Liberals—investment in the railway averaged £924 million per year in current prices. In a comparable four-year period from 1990–91 to 1993–94, investment averaged £1,350 million—no less than 46 per cent. higher than under the investment policies supported by the Liberals when they last had an opportunity to contribute to sustaining a Government in office.

Mr. Michael Meacher: rose—

Mr. Watts: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, although I know what he will say.

Mr. Meacher: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman knows what I intend to say. In looking at the record of recent years, he ended significantly at 1993–94. Would he like to give the House the figure for investment in the rail network—excluding the channel tunnel—in 1994–95?


Will he confirm that that figure, at £617 million, is far and away the lowest investment figure in real terms since the war?

Mr. Watts: I am happy to confirm that, following the years to which I have referred, investment last year and in the current year continues at around £1 billion. I will not accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation to ignore the substantial investment in international rail services. Is he suggesting that they are not part of the rail network?

Mr. Jacques Arnold: As to investment by British Rail, and therefore by the Government, is my hon. Friend aware that the people of Kent are extremely grateful for the hundreds of millions of pounds that are spent on new Networker rolling stock—as my constituents who commute to London prove every day?

Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend makes a very strong point.
I will not be tempted by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) to ignore the substantial investment in international rail services any more than any other business, in announcing its performance, would say, "We've invested X billion pounds, but let's forget about all of our investment in developing a new business. Let's forget about the £400 million spent on upgrading track to provide better freight services through the channel tunnel, which is allowing rail freight to compete with long-distance road haulage—for example, runs from Glasgow to Milan now take 36 hours by rail and 72 hours by road. Let's forget about all of the investment in our new business, and let's pretend that the old business is all that matters and that that is all we must contend with".
In his concluding remarks, the hon. Member for North Cornwall referred to the comment by the chairman of British Rail in his last annual report, that, in his opinion, the level of investment in the year on which he was reporting was insufficient to sustain the rail network. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the chairman of British Rail was referring mainly to investment, which will remain the responsibility of Railtrack, but let us leave that on one side and consider the regime within the arrangements that we have established for the privatised railway to ensure that there is sufficient funding for the necessary investment to sustain the core network.

Mr. Tyler: Is the Minister somehow suggesting that investment in Railtrack's responsibilities is a lesser priority than investment in British Rail? If that is the case, it is in direct contradition to what Railtrack is saying, which is that it now has a major problem with the hiatus in investment in basic maintenance to ensure that speed and weight restrictions do not have to be imposed on services, and to maintain safety standards.

Mr. Watts: No. On the contrary, Mr. Welsby and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the major investment priorities for the railway are now in the infrastructure. That is why the regime approved by the regulator provides for access charges to provide funding for Railtrack's investments to run at around £600 million a year—the level judged necessary to maintain the existing core network.
If the hon. Gentleman were to discuss Mr. Welsby's comment with him, he would not suggest that British Rail needs more funding for investment. Indeed, he has told us on many occasions that there is currently no business case

for further investment by British Rail in rolling stock, and that the need for investment is in the infrastructure. That is where the major part of the investment is going.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: The manager of the Network SouthEast service that would have got the York trains, had they been ordered, argued strongly with the British Rail Board that there was a business case for investment. The Prime Minister's motion says that privatisation will provide
greater scope for … upgrading the railway system.
If the Minister believes that to be true, will he explain how the nationalised railway has managed to invest £800 million in electrifying the east coast main line, but the private sector has not been able to bring on stream the channel tunnel link?

Mr. Watts: First, I find it gratifying that, in the new atmosphere running through the rail industry, the directors of train operating companies strongly advocate the needs of their passengers. I am sure that, when passenger operating companies are in the private sector, that advocacy of the standard of service that they want to deliver to their passengers will be heard even more strongly.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman picks up some points from misleading articles in the press today that the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) sought to raise with Madam Speaker as a point of order. That speculation is totally without foundation. It is far from the case that the private sector will prove incapable of delivering the channel tunnel rail link, but the hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the competition currently under way to be brought to a conclusion. I accept that the hon. Gentleman will probably wish to be a doubting Thomas until I can show him proof.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: As the Minister is dealing with current issues, and particularly as the newly promoted Minister of State, Scottish Office, is on the Front Bench, will he explain the position vis-a-vis the new Secretary of State for Scotland?
In Edinburgh today, the Scottish Office has been briefing the press that the new Secretary of State is to call in John Ellis, director of ScotRail, in a fresh political intervention over the future of Scottish-Anglo sleeper links. Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State for Scotland has made that intervention? Is there a change of policy? What discussions, if any, have there been between the new teams under the Secretaries of State at the Department of Transport and the Scottish Office?

Mr. Watts: My right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State for Scotland has picked up on the close interest in the future of Scottish rail services shown by his predecessor, who is now President of the Board of Trade. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is having discussions with ScotRail. I doubt that the hon. Gentleman is surprised, knowing my right hon. Friend.
I was referring to the regime of track access charges approved by the regulator, which will provide Railtrack with the funding necessary to invest about £600 million a year to sustain the quality of the existing network. In the current year, Railtrack expects to invest more than £700 million—an increase of one fifth over its expenditure in


the past year. The hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned the west coast main line. This Friday, Railtrack intends to invite tenders for the development of a new state-of-the-art signalling system that is the key to the £900 million project to upgrade the west coast main line.
I have been trying hard, but I have not yet detected where the so-called
privatisation threat on investment in the rail network
is having an impact. If Railtrack were left as a nationalised industry, as the Liberals clearly want and as some members of the Labour party might want—and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) undoubtedly and definitely does want—Railtrack would continue to be subject to the constraints of public expenditure controls. It would have to compete year after year with bids from health, education, social services and so on. We all know that, whichever Government are in power, they never have a bottomless purse. If Governments act as if they do, that has a deleterious effect on our fellow citizens as taxpayers.
One main advantage of a privatised Railtrack is that it will be freed from those constraints, be free to make commercially driven investment decisions and have much wider access to private capital for investment in the upgrading of the railway system.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall expressed doubts about the structure that we have chosen, saying that the pattern was not well received or likely to be adopted in other countries. When I attended the recent European conference of Transport Ministers in Vienna, considerable interest was shown by our partners—to the extent that the Austrian Minister who hosted the conference invited me to give a paper on railways restructuring. It is clear that we are the market leader in setting the structure for a railway system for the 21st century.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall gave his party's views on the future of Railtrack. Our policy is crystal clear. Railtrack is to be sold by stock market flotation within the lifetime of this Parliament. The national railway network will remain as an integrated system, providing the train paths required by passenger and freight train operators.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) started his assault on traditional Labour territory, in a recent speech in Perth.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: It was not that recent.

Mr. Watts: It was not that long ago. The right hon. Gentleman said:
Unlike the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats won't just criticise the Government for its plans".
There is the challenge for the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). He knows what he must say in his reply, because the hon. Member for North Cornwall told him. The right hon. Member for Yeovil continued:
We will guarantee that, if privatisation goes ahead, we will put our rail infrastructure back under public control.
There were no empty, uncosted promises. He named his price. He is obviously a much more confident forecaster of the stock market than I would want to be. Although he did not use the word, he said that the cost of fulfilling that promise would be a snip:
£200 million a year for five or six years.

Mr. Kennedy: He did not say that.

Mr. Watts: He said £200 million a year. If the hon. Gentleman would like to read his leader's speech, I have it here. I accept that "snip" is my word, but I think that it indicates the right hon. Gentleman's attitude. He said that such action would cost £200 million a year for five or six years, and he went on to say:
Given that the government's total spending bill is £300,000 million a year, £200 million is perfectly affordable. Indeed, it is cheap".
There we have it.

Mr. Tyler: I do not think that the Minister heard my point. If Railtrack does not go into the private sector before the general election, does he concede that the price of buying it back would be nil?

Mr. Watts: In the unlikely event that the right hon. Member for Yeovil formed a Government, and we had privatised Railtrack—as we intend to—the Treasury would have received the money. The net cost in either event would be nil.
In the spirit of conciliation, I shall try to agree with the right hon. Gentleman on one point. He was right to say—I heard his hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall repeat it—that the key to an integrated rail network is the track. Of course we are maintaining an integrated national system of track in our privatisation plans for Railtrack.
The right hon. Gentleman's reasoning is flawed because of his belief that it is necessary for the state to own the network. Why does he consider ownership such an essential ingredient in delivering integrated transport, whenever he might mean by that phrase? If ownership is the key, why does he stop at the track? Why does he not extend his principle to train operations? Indeed, in hearing the hon. Member for North Cornwall explaining how confusing he found it to be offered a choice of services at Gatwick, operated by five different companies, surely the logic of his argument is that he wants to nationalise train operators as well.

Mr. Kennedy: This is very interesting logic—let us pursue it. From the Government's point of view, if this is the direction in which one wants to go in this hypothetical argument, surely, if one is to privatise at all, one would want to privatise the track alongside the operators who will run the track, instead of splitting it up and making it an accountants' and lawyers' paradise, which is what we have turned it into.

Mr. Watts: I want to privatise the track; I want to keep it as a national system. I want to privatise operators who will run their services over the track and, in some instances, will be able to provide choice for passengers and freight customers, who will make use of their services.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Watts: Not at the moment, but I might later.
The logic of the argument of the hon. Member for North Cornwall about the confusion that he found in having a choice of services at Gatwick and at Littleborough—I wonder what he was doing there—must be that he would want those services nationalised as well. Why stop there? If ownership and control is essential to the provision of an integrated transport system, whatever


that means, do the British Airports Authority and British Airways need to be renationalised so that they can be integrated? Do buses and coaches need to be renationalised? What about the National Freight Corporation?
The logic of the arguments of the right hon. Member for Yeovil leads to the reincarnation of the British Transport Commission, and for every aspect of transport by land, sea and air to be owned and controlled by the state. Having been bold enough to adopt the orphaned policy of nationalisation, abandoned by its Labour family, why is the right hon. Gentleman shy of going the whole hog? This new commitment to state ownership and centralised control sits very uncomfortably alongside his other commitments to local decision-making.

Mr. Tyler: rose—

Mr. Spearing: rose—

Mr. Watts: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).

Mr. Spearing: Irrespective of ownership, does not the Minister's plan hinge on finance? If the rail service is to be as good—or bad—as it is now when it is under private operation, and if Railtrack is to be privatised with some notional return on capital, how will the financial surplus, or rather the deficit which is covered by the nation as a whole, be met? Will it be met entirely by the alleged efficiency of the operators and the alleged efficiency of Railtrack, which does not currently operate? How can the Minister square the financial matters, irrespective of ownership?

Mr. Watts: By continuing public subsidy to support socially necessary services, to which the Government have a strong attachment. But a new structure in which the parts of the railway industry that can operate on a proper commercial footing do so, and in which subsidy is targeted on securing services for passengers—replacing the miasma of cross-subsidy and lack of transparency—will ensure much better value for money for taxpayers.

Mr. Tyler: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Watts: I will give way one last time; then I must finish my speech.

Mr. Tyler: I now understand better why the Minister's colleague in the Austrian Government is so fascinated by the intricacies that the Minister obviously enjoyed presenting to him.
Why does the Minister say that it is impossible for the infrastructure to be in public control as part of a public transport policy, and for different operators to be allowed to use it, when that is precisely what happens on the roads?

Mr. Watts: I do not say that it is impossible. Indeed, when I spoke in Vienna I said that I believed that substantial benefits could be gained from restructuring so that the functions were separated. We go further, however, believing that there are further efficiencies to be gained from transferring businesses to the private sector.
Nationalisation has not proved a conspicuously successful model for our railways. Over the last 45 years or so, Governments of all persuasions have poured money into British Rail—over £54 billion in current values. Despite all that, the railways have continued to decline.

In 1953, 17 per cent. of journeys were made by train and 24 per cent. of goods were moved by rail. Today both figures are about 5 per cent., and they have been dropping.
Why is that? It is because state ownership, and thus state management, has failed the railways. The monolithic monopoly did nothing for the passenger; it did nothing for the freight customer; and it did nothing for the owners—the taxpayers. Because of the structure, the old-style British Rail management was not in a position to be responsive to customers' needs. It had no incentives to improve performance. A giant unitary organisation cannot hope to supply services as well as a competitive private sector operating commercially.
Something had to be done. Someone had to be bold enough to grasp the nettle and create a new approach and a new framework for rail services in the United Kingdom. That is what we did with the Railways Act 1993. We did it for three reasons. First, we wanted to improve the quality of service to the customer. That comes first, because it must: it is the most important thing for everyone connected with the railway industry to remember. Secondly, we wanted to improve the efficiency of the railways. Thirdly, we wanted to halt and reverse the decline in the use of railways.
I cannot believe that more of the same—the failed structure and operation of nationalisation—is the preferred option among Opposition Members, especially given the example of the outstanding success of privatisation in other transport sectors. Let us compare privatised British Airways with loss-making nationalised continental flag carriers such as Air France; or let us consider BAA, which, in the private sector, invests on average three times as much each year as it did as a nationalised industry.
Privatisation will provide passengers with new guarantees that nationalisation has never delivered. Passenger service requirements will protect every station and every route on the network. Competitive bidding for franchises will ensure better value for taxpayers. Subsidy will be targeted more effectively. The fares regime announced by the franchising director will ensure that passengers share in the greater efficiency that privatisation will bring. Controls over key fares on every route will deliver fares 4 per cent. lower in real terms over seven years.
It is because of the outstanding achievements of privatisation in other transport sectors that we can be confident that rail privatisation will deliver for rail passengers what airline privatisation has already provided for airline passengers. That is why we have no fear of the future, and no nostalgia for the failed doctrine of state ownership and state control.

Mr. Keith Hill: Hope springs eternal, as they say, and it is evident from the somewhat unconvincing performance of the Minister of State that this is one privatisation too far. Despite the twists and turns of a Government increasingly desperate to proffer some crumbs of comfort to a sceptical public—most recently, for example, the highly misleading fare capping announcement and the so-called service guarantee, which is simply a myth—the public remain unpersuaded about the case for rail privatisation, and indeed deeply hostile to it.
Privatisation is undesired by rail passengers, and its structure—the separation of track, signalling and operations—has been condemned by virtually every


railway professional at home and abroad. Its passage though Parliament was both time-consuming and profoundly contentious. The great rail sale has been greeted with almost total indifference by the private sector. Meanwhile, however, the uncertainty created by the privatisation has had a devastating affect on the rail manufacturing industry, and has placed a question mark over the 35,000 jobs associated with that industry.
The Railway Industry Association, the representative body of railway equipment manufacturing companies, has pointed to significant shortfalls in the expected investment in both the track and signalling since the inception of Railtrack. There is still no prospect of the urgently overdue modernising of the west coast main line, which will require major new investment in both infrastructure and rolling stock. Rolling stock orders for the west coast main line are dependent—if the Government survive for that long—on the granting of a franchise for that line, and that is unlikely to occur until 1997 at the earliest.
The worst effects have been felt in the rolling stock manufacturing sector as a result of the uncertainty created by privatisation. As my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) has pointed out, 1,800 jobs in York have been lost as a result of the hiatus in rolling stock orders. That is nearly 2,000 blighted lives and families as a direct result of rail privatisation.
Still, it is an ill wind that blows nobody any good, so let us not forget the real beneficiaries of privatisation. We have heard various estimates of the cost of rail privatisation, but let us go with the modest estimates of the Department of Transport. The Department now estimates that the cost of privatisation to date—for the work of legal experts, property and marketing consultants, accountants, tax specialists and merchant bankers—amounts to a still colossal £240 million. Privatisation has been a gold mine for the Government's mates in the City of London. The City slickers have made a mint from the great rail sell-off, and that is a scandal which must not and will not be overlooked during the whole sorry saga of the railway privatisation.
In all likelihood, rail privatisation will cost us all as taxpayers an extra £500 million a year to run the same level of service—if we are lucky. In 1993–94, before the so-called restructuring of the railway finances, the cost of railway grants to the taxpayer were just over £1 billion. In 1994–1995, after the restructuring, the final outturn figure is £1,560 million.
By 1996–1997—on the basis of the Government's estimates of the likely spending of the rail franchising director and the projections of current costs and revenues of the railway—the total cost to the taxpayer of running the same level of services is likely to stand at £1. 7 billion per annum. If the Minister has any doubts whatsoever about these estimates, I suggest that he consults the trends set out in figures 16 and 17 of the Department's "Transport Report 1995".
There will be an increase of at least £500 million in the cost to the taxpayer for a railway that will in all likelihood deliver the same level of services as before privatisation. It is difficult to see the benefit to the taxpayer or to the rail passenger of that massive growth in costs. What of the other proclaimed benefits of privatisation to the rail passenger?

Mr. Peter Luff: I have considerable affection and some respect for the hon. Gentleman, and I

may have missed him refer to this matter earlier on. He is talking about the potential benefits of privatisation to the passenger. I believe that I am right in saying that the hon. Gentleman is sponsored by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. Could he be more concerned about the benefits to the members of that union?

Mr. Hill: I hardly think so. The members of that union perceive few benefits under the existing conditions on the railway, never mind in the future. I shall anticipate the hon. Gentleman, who may continue by attacking—as is traditional with Conservative Members—the strikes declared in the railway industry. I find those attacks only too typical.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order that Members who address the House should declare their interests before speaking in a debate?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I must make it clear to the House that it is incumbent upon each individual Member to decide whether it is necessary to declare such an interest. If an hon Member so decides, he must, of course, declare that interest.

Mr. Hill: I declare an interest in my south London commuter constituents, who are profoundly fearful of the consequences of rail privatisation, for reasons that I am about to spell out in yet further detail.
What of the other proclaimed benefits of privatisation to the rail passenger? The Government's most recent and desperate effort to paper over the cracks of rail privatisation has been the franchising director's commitment to cap fares at the level of inflation over the period of the initial franchise agreement. So far, so good. That is, on the face of it, good news for the captive commuters of London and the south-east, who have suffered fare increases well in excess of the rate of inflation for too long.
Unfortunately, all is not as it first appears. The wrinkles are already showing through the rouge. Individual fares may increase above or below the target range, provided the weighted average remains within it. That depends critically on the basket of fares being truly representative, which it will not be if below-average increases are concentrated on tickets which are, in practice, rarely sold. We must monitor that development very carefully indeed.

Mr. Spearing: I understood that that average was weighted according to the actual volume of transactions, as I believe is the case with the retail prices index. Is my hon. Friend saying that the average is not truly weighted in terms of expenditure?

Mr. Hill: I understand that the average is extracted from a basket of fares over a period. In that context, it is certainly possible—unless we are extremely careful—that the overall average will not be representative of the true level of fare increases.
The key leisure fares for my south London constituents—the one-day travelcard and the cheap day return—are specifically exempted from regulation by the franchising director. The key fare for my constituents, and for most of the constituents in London and the south-east, is the period travelcard. That card, which is indispensable to most London commuters, appears also to be exempted


if London Transport and the franchisees can reach an agreement on its price. The temptation to collusion to fix a price for the travelcard at any level they want is obvious. So where is the benefit in that?
From an analysis of the franchising director's "Passenger Rail Industry Overview", which set out the details for the first three franchises, we know four things. First, there will be no protection for existing child fare reductions. Secondly, provision at stations of timetables showing all the services that call there will be required only
as far as is practicable".
Thirdly, operators will be free to use any type of rolling stock that they like. Fourthly, if VAT were to be levied on public transport, the franchising director would reimburse franchisees, with no provision for passing the relief on to passengers. Again, where is the benefit for rail passengers in all that?
Finally, there are the two jewels in the crown of the announcement by the former Secretary of State on passenger service requirements. The first was his commitment on overcrowding. On 7 February, he said:
Because the passenger service requirement specifies maximum load factors for peak services, they"—
that is, commuters—
will receive a guarantee that the operator will have to put on extra trains if demand for services increases, instead of simply cramming more people into existing trains.
However, from the franchising director's detailed guidelines, we now know that peak period overcrowding limits will be based on timetabled services rather than on the services that are actually run. In other words, the operator can run as many short-formed trains as he likes, and can even cancel as many as he likes. Provided that the trains are on the timetable, he will be deemed to be achieving his loading targets.
The detailed guidelines also tell us that, in any case, overcrowding limits are set at a level lower than that currently achieved by most sectors of Network SouthEast. Contrary to the previous Secretary of State's firm expectations, there is no incentive whatever in the guidelines for franchisees to put on extra trains. What benefit does rail privatisation bring there?
In his speech on 7 February, the former Secretary of State also said:
Our plans for the railways offer something new for passengers; they offer guarantees. For the first time there will be an absolute guarantee of service levels."—[Official Report, 7 February 1995; Vol. 254, c 210, 211.]
But in his guidelines issued in early June, the franchising director said of himself and the franchisee:
Either party may propose a change to the passenger service requirement at any time during the course of the franchise".
If that can be done at any time, there is no guarantee. What is the point of a guarantee if it can be changed at any time?
Many of the Government's promises on rail privatisation, including guaranteed service levels and reduced rush hour overcrowding, are now seen to be worthless. Rail privatisation is a fraud and a shambles. What is more, it is a more expensive fraud and shambles. If the Government had an ounce of common sense or decency, they would scrap the whole daft lot of it.

Mr. Richard Tracey: I have a sneaking suspicion that we have just been listening to the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers' brief, or part of it. It would have been a little more honest of the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) if he had confessed to being sponsored by that union and to being a long-term member of it.
This is a Liberal day of debate on railways, which are clearly the flavour of the month for that party. I am sure that all my hon. Friends found it interesting to see 12 Liberal Democrat Members in the Chamber at one point, which must be something of a record. Even the leader of the party popped in for a moment or two, although he did not stay to confess to his Perth speech, which was mentioned by the Minister.
It is good that the Liberals have raised the subject of the railways, because clearly the Labour party will not make much of a contribution. I am not sure whether Labour Members have all dashed off, as their Welsh colleagues did yesterday, or whether they are drinking tea somewhere in London.
I have noticed that, in various parts of London, Liberals are now indulging in a fair bit of scaremongering about rail privatisation. I have even seen one or two of the famous questionnaires that they hand out. Out of seven questions, I counted six leading questions that would never have been allowed in a court of law. There were questions such as, "Do you believe that rail privatisation will be a disaster for the railways?" What is one supposed to say?
One questionnaire claimed that £700 million was being spent on legal fees for railway privatisation, and then asked, "Do you think that that money should have been spent somewhere else, such as on the railways?" How is one supposed to answer that? The Liberals always get the answer "yes" from the people they so regularly canvass on the railway stations of London and elsewhere.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) may say that this is a central office research department plant, but what fascinates me about the Liberals is the fact that the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Isle of Wight welcomed the privatisation of rail services there. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) told me that. He has heard that from the Liberal council there, and read it in the local paper. So what is so wrong with rail privatisation according to the hon. Member for North Cornwall and his 11 colleagues, who are not speaking for the Isle of Wight this afternoon?

Mr. Tyler: rose—

Mr. Tracey: Does the hon. Gentleman want to put the record straight or to twist it a bit more?

Mr. Tyler: I warned the hon. Gentleman not to use out-of-date Conservative research department briefs. If he had attended several previous debates, he would have heard his extraordinary statement repeated again and again, and specifically answered each time by my hon. Friends. We support the privatisation of individual services. I went to the Isle of Wight and specifically supported the initiative there, so why does the hon. Gentleman go on about it? The only possible reason is that, unfortunately, the new chairman of Conservative central office has not yet torn up those outdated briefs.

Mr. Tracey: I can easily say in response to the hon. Gentleman that all my hon. Friends and I support the


privatisation of every single railway service in this country. As I shall explain, that seems to be working rather well.
Liberals are anti-privatisation—and anti-car too. They do not like too many cars on the road, or any cars that burn petrol and cause fumes, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has told us many times. The Liberals also oppose road building, except when the bypass in question happens to be in a part of the world where they control the council, or hold one of the seats. It is not long since we heard about a little fracas concerning a bypass in Berkshire that the Liberals as a party support, although they often say the opposite.

Mr. Michael Stephen: Is not another example of Liberal hypocrisy the way in which they tell environmentalists how much they favour a carbon tax to cut noxious emissions, yet tell pensioners that they do not approve of VAT on gas and electricity?

Mr. Tracey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those of us who have ever had much to do with the Liberal Democrats, especially in the south of England, know only too well that there is often a slight shift of policy between one street and the next, or even between one front door and the next. If neighbours are not at their door at the same moment, it is convenient to tell a different story.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman, uncharacteristically, is almost in danger of sounding embittered. As he is talking about different policies, will he say which ones he supported in the privacy of the ballot box last week? Did he vote for the Prime Minister—the least worst option, as the Minister for Transport in London described the victory—or did he vote for the alternative Conservative policies?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot see how that can be relevant to the debate.

Mr. Tracey: I am grateful for your lesson on that, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman had been watching the television last Tuesday night, he would have discovered how I voted, because most of the British nation seemed to do so.
My hon. Friends and I are seeking to show that there are elements of hypocrisy in the Liberal party and in its motion. I fear that, because of its hang-up about rail privatisation, it is seriously misleading the public and, indeed, my constituents. Some Liberal Democrat councillors in the royal borough of Kingston upon Thames have been claiming that railway lines will close because of privatisation. That has been consistently and categorically denied by the managers of South West Trains, the franchising company in the area. Indeed, the passenger service requirement, which has been imposed by the franchising director, shows that there is now scope for an excessive number of trains compared to what we have at the moment.
I very much welcome the development of the franchising director and the PSRs, because it means that my constituents, and everybody else's, will for the first time have guarantees on services, whereas, as we all know only too well, in the heady old days British Rail could change services without telling anybody, without apologising and without doing anything to assist the travelling public.

Mr. Keith Hill: I have in front of me the guidelines for the first three franchisees, in which the franchising director says quite explicitly:
Either party may propose a change to the passenger service requirement at any time during the course of the franchise.
Where is the guarantee in that?

Mr. Tracey: The point is that either party may propose a change. That does not mean that the franchising director will accept the change. [Laughter] We can listen to the hypocritical laughter from Opposition Members, who are such great friends of the old British Rail, but, as I said earlier, it regularly changed services; it cut services, and very often it did not have the courtesy to tell the travelling public. That situation will not exist in future. I believe that there is a guarantee.
The Liberal Democrats, who at grass roots level are scaremongering about passenger services, are making residents and everyone else sick and tired of it all.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for generously giving way a second time. He should not rely on out-of-date Conservative central office briefs but do a bit more homework, because those of us from Scotland, who have been ahead in terms of the impact of privatisation, can assure him that the categorical, and no doubt sincere, ministerial assurances that were given about service provision were completely undermined by pre-emptive decisions based on subsidy, which is within the remit of the franchising director. I fear that the guarantees that the hon. Gentleman thinks he has are not worth the paper that they are not actually written on.

Mr. Tracey: I have a great affection for the hon. Gentleman. He, of course, represents a Scottish constituency; I represent a London constituency. I have had my guarantees from South West Trains, the franchising company running the trains on those lines.
I do not want to delay the House much longer, but I must share with it my experience of what is happening where Railtrack and South West Trains operate. I have, for a long time, been asking for refurbishment of Surbiton station, which is in my constituency and which is well known to commuters in south-west London and Surrey, because it is heavily used and was quite clearly in need of it. The greatest success that I had in three or four years was simply to get the clock there working again, which nevertheless was a great success to constituents who rely on it to tell the time. Now, as a result of Railtrack and South West Trains being in operation, £750,000 is being spent on refurbishment of the station. I very much welcome that; I do not believe that anybody can carp about that.
Secondly, on one of my lines, we have had a considerable problem with vandalism, and, indeed, with threats to passengers travelling alone. South West Trains put considerable investment into closed circuit television and into anti-vandal measures on the station concerned in response to the complaints of local residents, including the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who sits opposite in rather a different role.
Railtrack is investing £27 million in signalling and track work on the main line between Wimbledon, running through my constituency, and Woking. I have had discussions with Railtrack's managers, who now say that they are quite convinced that they have far more


flexibility and freedom to invest in the necessary infrastructure improvements than they ever had when they worked under the control of British Rail.
We have had the successful privatisations of British Telecom, British Airways, the British Airports Authority, the freight companies, Sealink and so on—the successes that we all know so well. That is what we are aiming to achieve with British Rail and the privatisation of the railway companies.
For too long, British Rail was a music hall joke in this country—something that would not have changed if the Labour party had been in power for the past few years. The Government are making progress and we shall continue to do so.

Mr. Henry McLeish: I welcome the new Secretary of State for Transport to his challenging position, and in his absence might I suggest that his first main challenge is to dump privatisation of the railways? It is alleged that he is on the centre left of the Conservative party and that he is interested in transport. He could do nothing better for the nation than to scrap what is now becoming a farce and a fiasco throughout the length and breadth of Britain. I suspect that his predecessor, who has moved on to the chairmanship of the party, will have the profound disappointment of being chairman for two years with the party in government and then for five years with it in opposition. What an ordeal for anyone to have to suffer for the next seven years.
Crucially, the Government will not accept that they are tearing the heart out of the railways. In the past 18 months, issue after issue has shown that they are not achieving any of their privatisation objectives but are destroying much of the morale, the network and initiative that have been built up in the past 30 or 40 years. It seems ludicrous that the Conservative party will not accept that policy, not personalities, lies at the heart of their deep unpopularity.
The Prime Minister involved himself in a vote of confidence and started off by saying that there were a few nutters in his party of whom he had to take care. After 12 days, he had managed to firm them up to 30 per cent. of the parliamentary Conservative party opposing him—a real achievement. [HON. MEMBERS: "What has this to do with the railways?"] It is relevant to the policy issues that are facing the country. If the Opposition have some patience, the relevance will sink in even with them—

Mr. Simon Burns (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): We are the Government, not the Opposition.

Mr. McLeish: If I want to practise for the future, it is not incumbent on the Whip to intervene.
In the reshuffle, the new Secretary of State for Transport was brought in and we welcome that change, but the nation is not interested in shuffling heads on the deck of the Tory Titanic. The problem is the crucial policy issues in which it is immersed. Conservative Members may laugh, as the Government Whip is, but we will have the final laugh within 22 months.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: My constituents are already laughing at the pleasure and comfort of travelling in the brand new Networker rolling stock with which the Government have provided British Rail.

Mr. McLeish: I admire the bravery of the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold). Anyone who voted

for the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) deserves some credit. His intervention was not predicated on the fact that he is a consultant for Thomas Cook Group Ltd.

Mr. Arnold: I am not.

Mr. McLeish: According to the Register of Members' Interests, the hon. Gentleman is a consultant to Thomas Cook Group Ltd. If my hon. Friends can be challenged on their contributions, it is right for the House to appreciate that an interest may be involved.

Mr. Arnold: For the hon. Gentleman's information, I am not a consultant to Thomas Cook. I worked for the company for a number of years and carried out a consultancy for it not so long ago, but I am not at present a consultant.

Mr. McLeish: You may want to give us some guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the Register of Members' Interests dated 31 January 1995, it states Thomas Cook—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. As I have explained to the House before, it is incumbent on a Member to declare an interest, if there is one, but matters change. My recollection is that an interest must be recorded in the register within a month. Clearly there will be changes whenever the book is published.

Mr. McLeish: I am grateful for that clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker. Until about six months ago, the hon. Member for Gravesham was a consultant to Thomas Cook Ltd., but I will move on.
It is important to identify the key issues. Despite the contributions of Conservative Members, they will not accept that privatisation is deeply damaging to the fabric of the rail network. We constantly hear this nonsense about rail privatisation being the same as any other privatisation. Was British Airways chopped into 95 pieces and sold off? Of course not. Even if one were prejudiced and ideologically committed enough to privatise British Rail, one could not have picked a more monumentally stupid way to undertake the process.
That is the essential difference between the Government's arguments about this privatisation as compared to previous privatisations. They talk about integration but what a sick joke that is as regards the 95 pieces that the Government are trying to pretend would be a comprehensive and integrated national rail network.
On the timetable for privatisation, as the legislation was enacted in November 1993, why has not one of the 25 franchises been sold off? Who is dragging their feet? Is it the Front-Bench conspirators who are against what the Government are doing? Does the hon. Member for Gravesham want to intervene now? The Government have a target of selling off 51 per cent. by April 1996. Does any Conservative Member think that that can be achieved? I would like to be persuaded. Clearly, the timetable is in disarray, and it is creating tremendous problems for the railways.
The second issue is cost. My hon. Friends have mentioned the serious costs involved. The amount has been estimated at £500 million, £1 billion or more, but the real point is the opportunity that we are losing by squandering taxpayers' money on this futile exercise. Of course, no one mentions the fact that the public service


obligation grant was virtually doubled in a year, not to provide extra services or any extra investment but simply to fatten up Railtrack and the rolling stock leasing companies for sale.
My hon. Friends are right to point out that, if privatisation goes ahead, in 1997–98 a privatised Railtrack will be £600 million to £700 million more expensive every year as far as one can see into the future. Will any Conservative Member defend that—a privatisation that costs the taxpayers an extra £600 million to £700 million? I do not see Conservative Members queuing up to intervene. Why not? This is a taxpayers' issue. Are we not always being lectured by the Government that we must be prudent with the nation's taxes and finances? I do not think we will get any volunteers to argue for the sheer lunacy of that policy.
Investment is the basis for this debate. Why is 30 per cent. of rolling stock more than 30 years old? Is that not a criterion on which one would base an investment decision? Not at all. Conservative Back Benchers are now quiet. The argument has hit home. Of course we need investment. Why should people have to endure 30-year-old coaches in the south-east and throughout the network? Modern coaches do not prevent accidents, but one's chances of survival and the chances of minimising threats to passengers will be that much better in a coach that was constructed last year than in one constructed 30 years ago. Investment is crucial for safety, and the Government are running away from their responsibilities.
We have also heard much about the west coast main line. A tragedy is unfolding because the Government promised that that would be a prestigious flagship project costing £1 billion. What are we getting now? We are getting apologies, because all that they are going to spend is £18 million on restructuring the signalling system. Words escape me, but the word "scandal" comes to mind. Are the Government merely breaking their promises, or is a link that would take people from the north of Scotland through the centre of England and on to Europe being abandoned? That is what is happening. Despite the protestations and the fine words from Railtrack chairman Bob Horton and from Ministers, the fact is that £18 million is becoming a substitute for a £1 billion project that is disappearing into the mists of time.
Why are everyone's energies tied up in this most useless of privatisation exercises? Constituencies on the west coast main line want improved passenger safety and quality in our train network. What they cannot stomach is the fact that the Tories are reneging on a promise to reconstruct the line, and the taxpayer is paying hand over fist towards this monumentally stupid exercise. It is difficult to understand how the Government could get it so wrong. Is it because they are dominated by prejudice and ideological extremism, or did they genuinely think that smashing a railway into 95 pieces and starving it of investment was the way forward? Those points must be on the consciences of Conservative Members.
The final point about the state of disarray of the railways concerns freight. The battle for freight is about the survival of the rail freight industry. It is not about building on an industry which is doing spectacularly well—it would be wrong to suggest that—but about working on an industry that has potential. What did the Government do? They created an artificial internal market

and turned the rail freight industry into three companies. When will Ministers appreciate that the battle for freight is not within the railways but between rail and road? [Interruption.]
I hear an hon. Gentleman say, "Of course it is," from a sedentary position. I should like that constructive comment to be passed on to Ministers. The capacity of Ministers to pursue dogma through internal market competition is nothing to do with the real battle. They should think again about the three companies. [HON. MEMBERS: "That has nothing to do with it."] It has everything to do with it.
The situation is clear. The Government, like us, are surely committed to creating a better environment beyond the year 2000. One small way in which they can contribute to that is to shift road freight on to the railways.
The key issue should be the competition that we should be generating between rail and road. The Government are not doing that. [Interruption.] Whether the hon. Member for Gravesham likes it or not, he might like to take a more active interest in the issue by persuading Ministers that the real struggle concerns the environment and competition between road and rail, not internal competition within the railways, which is absolute nonsense and merely reinforces the prejudices of Conservative Members and does nothing for the industrial economy in Britain.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Why does the hon. Gentleman think that, through all the years of nationalised railways, there has been a steady shift—not least by the Post Office—from rail to road freight? Why could not British Rail compete effectively under nationalisation? Surely a number of British Rail franchisees competing to pick up business are highly likely to get it, because they will have the private enterprise ethic to guide them to be successful, to get business and thereby to profit from it.

Mr. McLeish: The realities of the railway do not reinforce the hon. Gentleman's points. It is clear that there has been a decline in respect of both passengers and freight in the usage of rail. No one disputes that.
The Government's answer to problems always involves prejudice and ideological extremism. Their every utterance is about nationalisation and bad management of the national rail network. That is indicative of one of the reasons why the country is in the state that it is. For 16 years, it has been public bad, private good. The hon. Member for Gravesham can sit back in his seat and relax but when confronted with reality at the next general election the smile will be wiped off his face.

Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman talked of the state that the country is in. This country is now the leading economy in Europe, with profitable and successful businesses; it is not the sick man of Europe that the Labour party left in 1979.

Mr. McLeish: I am encouraged by the hon. Gentleman's anger. His intervention bears no relationship to the reality in Britain or to reality for our European Union partners. His comment was important. I hope that it will be well circulated to his constituents.
It is clear that this whole process is in a state of disarray. I welcomed the new Secretary of State for Transport. His main challenge is to persuade a number of his colleagues in the Cabinet that the whole process should be dumped.
I want to finish on two points that sum up this fiasco. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) will deal with the issue of sleeper services to Scotland. The Government and the British Railways Board were dragged into the courts in Scotland to be exposed for what they had shown to Scots—utter contempt for their rail network. They thought that, through stealth and the incompetence of the director of franchising, Mr. Roger Salmon, they could close services under the guise of consultation on a draft passenger service requirement. They were found out. Is it not a disgrace that railway policy is now going to be partly dictated in the courts of England and Scotland? That is a fiasco and the Government know it.
The second issue is trans-European networks. It is an important issue for Britain because it involves integrating the major routes in Britain with those in Europe. It is absolutely right that that should be done. What did Ministers do when they went to Brussels? They sabotaged the proposals. We find that the European Union is giving no priority to schemes. It has thrown out environmental impact assessments and of course no cash is being provided by the European Union for such developments.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: That is appalling rubbish.

Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman says that that is appalling rubbish, but I put that comment on record. The hon. Gentleman, as part of his education and to gain the knowledge that he clearly lacks, should read the Council of Ministers, report from the Cannes summit, from which he will clearly see that I am correct.

Mr. Tyler: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that he proposed to conclude in a minute. Before he does so, could he comment on this statement by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair):
I am not going to spray around commitments as to what we are going to do when the Government carries through its proposals, if it carries them through. I am not going to get into a situation where I am declaring that the Labour Government is going to commit sums of money to renationalisation".
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not sit down without telling us precisely how his party stands and whether he is prepared to give a commitment, alongside ours, to retain Railtrack in the public interest.

Mr. McLeish: The essential difference between us and the Liberal Democrats is that we will form the next Government. As a consequence, we have to take the issues seriously. There is a great contradiction in the hon. Gentleman's contribution. In one breath he says that we do not know what the nature of the sale will be or even whether it will be sold. Will it be 51 per cent. that is sold? What will be the nature of the Government's involvement? It is wise and prudent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to say that. There is no point in a party that will take over Government in less than 20 months making specific financial commitments on any issue that affects every Department.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that the Government have been going across to Brussels and somehow obstructing environmental statements on European infrastructure projects. Surely he knows that an

environmental statement was produced and published on the channel tunnel rail link last November. Has he not read it?

Mr. McLeish: I can dismiss that comment by pointing out that anybody who voted for the right hon. Member for Wokingham is not in a position to speak about Europe in a positive manner.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I do not want to intrude on private grief, but before the hon. Gentleman sits down I would be interested to hear his reply to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). I admit that it is an unlikely eventuality but it might help us to know whether the hon. Gentleman is prepared to go down the rash and extraordinary road that the hon. Member for North Cornwall is prepared to go down and announce now that he is prepared to take Railtrack back into public ownership, for there is no doubt that it will by then be in the private sector. Will Labour take back into public ownership the train operating companies which will by then be in the private sector?
It would help the House to know, given the interest of the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) in sleeper services, what subsidy the hon. Gentleman believes it is appropriate for the Government to inject into such services. A figure—some real commitment and not just waffle—on such matters would be extraordinarily helpful.

Mr. McLeish: It is invigorating from our point of view to be put in the position of a Government—we have the Liberals on the one hand and the Minister on the other. To be fair, the Minister should be congratulated because he survived a remarkable—[HON. MEMBERS: "Here we go."] I think that the Minister would like to hear what I have to say. I speak to him outside the Chamber, although I do not know whether that helps his career. However, despite his remarkable comments about the Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "They were an endorsement."] They were an endorsement, in a way. In any event, the Minister is back in the transport team—he is a survivor.
However, it would be ludicrous for me to rise to the bait and to get involved in the tension between the Conservative and Liberal parties. At the next election, two parties will be fighting for their political skins—the Conservatives and the Liberals. The natural tension and enmity between them is something to behold.

Mr. Terry Dicks: The hon. Gentleman is like a little worm wriggling.

Mr. McLeish: I hope that Hansard caught that, as it is quite an enlightened comment from the hon. Gentleman, who is not known for such comments.
The point is that the Labour party will form the next Government and the Conservatives will be in opposition. We shall have the policies not only to put the country back on its feet but to put the railways back together.
After a series of interventions, I must conclude my remarks by dealing with the trans-European networks.

Mr. Norris: rose—

Mr. McLeish: I shall not give way. The Minister will be winding up, and I have been reasonably generous in accepting interventions.
The trans-European networks are hugely symbolic of the direction that a modern railway should be taking beyond the year 2000. It is a huge disappointment to people who care about the rail network and want a prosperous economy that the Government are dragging their feet on participation in and support for such an innovative venture. However, it illustrates the malaise that affects our railways and which is solely the responsibility of a Government who will not face their investment responsibilities for the next century, but who instead want to indulge in a privatisation which will not be good for Britain or any part of Britain, and which will clearly not be good for passengers who currently use the rail network.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: The people whom I want to benefit from the Government's plans for the rail network are the passengers, not the rail unions which so dominate the Labour party's thinking or the apologists or second-class socialists on the Liberal Democrat Benches.

Mr. Stephen: My hon. Friend does the Liberals an injustice by calling them second-class socialists. Will he accept that they are first-class socialists? The evidence for that is that they are making a commitment to renationalise the railways, whereas the Labour party is not.

Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution. I have always been wedded to the idea that the Liberal Democrats could not be first-class anything, but perhaps my hon. Friend is right.
It was no surprise to hear the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) defend the traditional, entrenched producer culture of the public sector unions. I notice that his office benefits from Unison, formerly the National Union of Public Employees, which funds a research officer in his department. I notice that, before entering the House, the hon. Gentleman's history included a period as a researcher for the social work department of Edinburgh university and periods as a university lecturer and planning officer. He does not understand the private sector, because he has never worked in it. Like almost all his colleagues and almost all the Liberal Democrats, he has no idea about private sector business. He and those like him do not understand customer service; they are in the pockets of the public sector unions. Labour and Liberal Democrat policies are all bought and paid for.
Let us consider Labour's position on previous privatisations and the accuracy of its predictions. The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) claimed in 1983:
The public telephone box could be threatened with extinction".—[Official Report. 18 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 41.]
Would any Labour spokesman wish to go back to the days of a public sector British Telecom?
Labour's record is equally deplorable on other issues. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) claimed that bus deregulation and privatisation
will not improve the lot of the bus passenger".—[Official Report, 22 May 1985; Vol. 79, c. 1096.]
What has happened since deregulation and privatisation went ahead?

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the warning in lavatories and sleepers on British Rail trains, which states that one should not drink the water? I fear that he may not have heeded that advice, judging by his condition this afternoon. I am really intervening to give him a break so that he can catch his breath. Does he agree that the singular practical and fundamental difference—not a difference of political philosophy—between rail privatisation and all the others that he has mentioned is the difficulty caused by having an infrastructure and operators who pay an access charge to it? The hon. Gentleman is comparing apples with oranges.

Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman has failed to understand that I am going through the history of Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen and their inaccurate predictions about privatisation. I promise that I shall deal with the issue that he has raised because it is also important for my constituency.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich was proved wrong, because bus mileage outside London has increased by almost a quarter since deregulation and operating costs—crucially—have come down by a third.

Mr. Keith Hill: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten the House as to how bus privatisation has benefited the 13 million bus passengers a year who have ceased to use the buses?

Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman's intervention does not relate to the quotation that I read out. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said that bus deregulation and privatisation would not improve the lot of the passenger, but bus mileage has gone up and operating costs have come down by a third.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is not the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) that passengers who no longer travel on the buses now travel in their personal cars which, thanks to the prosperity created by the Government, they can afford?

Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. However, I must return to the catalogue of incorrect predictions made by Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) described British Airways as the "pantomime horse of capitalism" in November 1979. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) said earlier, British Airways is now the world's favourite airline. The Opposition were wrong about buses, wrong about British Airways and wrong about British Telecom. They have been wrong about every privatisation.

Mr. Stephen: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) and his colleagues were to set up in business as clairvoyants, they would risk prosecution under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968?

Mr. Hawkins: I agree with my hon. Friend. I represent one of the towns that has rather more accurate clairvoyants, and I suggest that some could advise Labour Front-Bench spokesmen in future.

Mr. McLeish: I hate to split up the double act, but will the hon. Gentleman consider the most important difference between the various privatisations, which is


that British Rail is going to be axed into 95 bits and then sold? Does not that alter slightly the frame of reference within which he might wish to evaluate his comments?

Mr. Hawkins: What my constituents want out of privatisation is an improvement in their rail services. I am interested in the lot of the passenger. Many of the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues were claiming that privatisation would not benefit the passenger—[Interruption.] I am seeking to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. Long before privatisation, and before pre-privatisation work started, British Rail axed the direct through services between Scotland, part of which he represents, and my constituency, and between London and my constituency.
The hon. Gentleman cannot claim a link between privatisation and the cutting of services. British Rail axed those services at the beginning of a Labour party conference some three years ago. I said then that, when the private sector had the opportunity to be involved in the railways, we should get back those through services. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that a private sector operator is proposing to reintroduce direct through services, which will benefit the passenger.
The result of the Government's policy, and the method that they have used, is bringing back to passengers services that the nationalised system got rid of. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. In part, it is also the answer to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy).
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) spoke about the £200 million—a mere bagatelle—that it would cost to take part of Railtrack back into the public sector, as is suggested by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). The Liberal Democrats propose imposing that cost on the British taxpayer for up to six years. If the hon. Member for North Cornwall believes that the pursuit of that Liberal Democratic dogma represents good value for the taxpayer, I beg to differ. The problem with the Liberal Democrats, as I think Winston Churchill previously said about another Liberal, is that
he has sat on the fence so long the iron has entered his soul.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I think that the hon. Gentleman is getting his historic allusions mixed up. At the next general election, the public will obviously have a political choice to make, based on what we have to offer and our list of spending priorities. No one in the House should take any lecture from any Conservative, when a Conservative Government have presided over the billions of lost public money which was the poll tax—its invention, destruction and replacement. We will take no lectures about the Conservatives' prudential fiscal approach, given that track record.

Mr. Hawkins: The most important current factor about the rail network, and what is best for its customers and passengers, is the damaging proposals of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen to disrupt rail services yet again. That will cost the taxpayer even more money and damage services to passengers, just as last year's signal workers' dispute led to the loss of £173 million.

Mr. Bob Dunn: I was not in the Chamber for the early part of the debate, so can my hon. Friend

please remind me whether any member of the Labour Front-Bench team took the opportunity to condemn the proposed rail strike?

Mr. Hawkins: No such opportunity was taken, but that is not surprising, because the Labour party has always been an apologist for the rail unions, which dominate it. Every member of the shadow Cabinet receives research help or sponsorship from a trade union, so it is hardly surprising that they simply support their union paymasters.

Mr. Keith Hill: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the Conservative party always defends the right of workers to strike in a free society yet invariably condemns them when they make the effort to do so?

Mr. Hawkins: The point about the proposed strike is that many of the train drivers and ASLEF members either did not vote, or voted against a strike. Well under half of those entitled to vote supported the strike. The proposed dispute is damaging not only to passengers' interests but to those of the taxpayer. The hon. Gentleman's friends in the rail unions support that strike call, as they have others on many occasions, because they see it an opportunity to fight a political, ideological battle. It has nothing to do with anyone needing any more money.
The train drivers are being offered a 3 per cent. pay increase while many of my constituents, who are struggling in the private and the public sectors, have been offered nothing like that. Many people have taken a pay cut to keep their businesses going. If the hon. Gentleman believes that the 3 per cent. offer is inadequate, I invite him to stand up as an apologist for the train drivers. I note that he does not want to accept that invitation.
We have sensible rail workers, including many who learned lessons from last year's dispute involving the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. When the leader of that union recently called on his members to support the proposed strike, 9,503 staff voted against industrial action and just 8,980 voted in favour. I am sure that all the passengers who were delighted with that result are disappointed that ASLEF drivers, despite being offered a 3 per cent. pay increase, are calling for an unrealistic increase of 6 per cent. That is double the rate of inflation. They plan to damage passenger interests and to bring the rail network to a halt.
We need to provide continuing opportunities to attract private sector companies to the rail network because they would offer good services to passengers by introducing competition and investing in the rail infrastructure and new rolling stock. That is in the interests of the customers and the passengers, and that is why I support the Government's policy of privatising the rail network.

Mr. John Greenway: As this is a Liberal Democrat Supply day, and reference has been made already to a by-election in another constituency, it is worth recalling what happened during the 1986 Ryedale by-election. The then successful Liberal candidate—in the old days of the Alliance—made it clear during the campaign that the privatisation of the buses would be a complete and utter disaster. What has happened since? The bus service in the Greater York area is now


recognised, even by Labour-controlled York city council, as the best it has been for years. That is the consequence of that successful privatisation.
People may say, "Oh well, there are few rural bus services," but that was always so, and just a few passengers use them. At least people are aware of the commitment to continue the public subsidy of those socially desirable rural bus services. Those same principles underpin what the Government are seeking to achieve with the railways.
I am a strong supporter of privatisation generally, but it must be recognised that it is difficult to accommodate and accomplish it in some industries. Without doubt, privatisation has been a success in the transport sector. One need only consider long distance coaches, the road haulage business, buses, the British Airports Authority, National Freight and British Airways—an undoubted success—to recognise that. Those companies have done considerably better in the private sector than in the public sector, to the point where they have become world leaders, which is undoubtedly true of British Airways. We must ask whether that same success could be achieved for the railways. What benefits would privatisation bring to the railways'? Is it even reasonable to compare the success of those other transport operators with the railways?
Even the most avid enthusiasts of British Rail would acknowledge that the railways do not work as well as they should. That was even truer before the Government announced their privatisation policy five years ago. It is a paradox, but, if anything, the most notable improvements in railway performance have occurred in the past four years, since the Government's commitment to privatise the railways was established.
Many of those improvements were achieved after significant increases in investment, especially in new rolling stock. My part of the world, Yorkshire, has benefited from the successful completion of the electrification of the east coast main line, which now provides far better services than those to which we were used. Sadly, that does not mean that the trains always run on time, but the service has improved and it is recognised as an international leader.
If there is a link between investment and improvement in railway performance, it suggests, as many hon. Members, particularly those from the Opposition, have sought to do today, that if we could only attract more investment, all the problems would be solved. I am sorry that the hon. Member for North Cornwall is not in his place, but I am sure that his colleagues will recount my following remarks. He referred to the annual report of British Railways Board, published just a few days ago, in which Mr. John Welsby, the chief executive, said that the current level of investment was not satisfactory.
Mr. Welsby is in a good position to know that as he is the chief executive of the British Railways Board. He has told us that there is a need for more investment. Yet in January, as recently as six months ago, as the House heard earlier from the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley), the British Railways Board said that there was no commercial case for replacing old rolling stock on South Eastern Railways, especially in Kent, despite the fact that some of the trains are more than 30 years old.
I believe that part of the reason why there was no commercial case was the constraint of trying to meet Treasury rules, in order to make out a case for leasing new trains, even by a private finance initiative. The House knows from previous debates that the decision by the British Railways Board, on one hand saying that there is not enough investment but on the other effectively rejecting a privately funded opportunity to acquire new trains, has had devastating consequences for the people of greater Yorkshire, in the form of the announcement in May that the ABB carriage works in York is to close.
I remind the House that, even though the chief executive of the British Railways Board said that there was no commercial case for new rolling stock, as recently as December 1994 the head of South Eastern Railways told Conservative Members who represent Kent constituencies that new trains could be expected to be ordered fairly soon.
As you are probably aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have taken a great interest in that matter because the carriage works has been local to many of my constituents, and I have tried, as has the hon. Member for York, to save the carriage works in his constituency from closure. We have considered carefully the possibilities of using private finance to get new trains on the railway by means of the private finance initiative, but, sadly, it has not come to pass. I am left with the overall conclusion that, the railway remaining in the public sector, the rules of public finance by the Treasury are too stringent.
The British Rail chief executive, Mr. Welsby, said in his annual report that the current demand and emphasis should be on infrastructure. Despite the fact that I would much prefer more new rolling stock to have been built and ordered from the York carriage works, I believe that he is right about that. Indeed, the success of the electrification of the east coast main line is an example of what can be done when we are bold and when the funds are available to bring our railways up to date and make them the modern infrastructure that they need to be. The news that the west coast main line is to be re-electrified and modernised is very welcome.
I was an avid train spotter as a young lad, and I remember when the first electrification took place. It is staggering to consider that it is probably the best part of 35 or 40 years ago. All the steam trains disappeared, and we did not believe that there was much fun in watching the electrics go by; they were not the same.
I say to my hon. Friend the Minister, when we speak about infrastructure, please do not neglect the need to repair and renovate some of the rural lines, because they provide an extremely important service to local people. A privatised railway will continue to require a subsidy for those services from Government.
That argument for more capital investment—the debate has partly been characterised by that—always appears to be based on the assumption that only more public money can succeed in achieving that. The Government are blamed for not having invested enough money in the railway, but, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in his opening remarks, the Government's record on rail investment in recent years is very good. We should do more, but I fail to understand where in the public purse that new money will come from.
The fact that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) could not, in answer to my hon. Friend the Minister, answer directly what a Labour Government,


God forbid, might do if they were in office about, for example, renationalising Railtrack or making a further commitment to capital investment in the railway as a public sector operation—the fact that no amounts can be pledged—is a clear recognition that the Labour party knows that money does not grow on trees for that type of investment.
The House must face up to the reality that, if we want a truly modern railway, the amount of moneys that we need to make that a reality will come only from the private sector, not the public sector.
Any successful business reinvests out of retained profits or it seeks capital, whether by borrowing or in the form of share capital on which it expects a proper return. That is the basic economic fact of life. However, the key to the problem that we have with our railway is that, in the past 40 years, there has been a steady, gradual decline in rail passenger numbers. That has come in parallel with a dramatic increase in the use of the motor car and of road freight.

Mr. Stephen: They are more prosperous.

Mr. Greenway: That has been accompanied, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) said from a sedentary position, by many people having greater prosperity and the opportunity to buy their own cars and exercise their freedom. As my hon. Friend the Minister said recently, they can exercise their freedom to get into their own car and go where they want to in their own transport.
There is, however, the opportunity for a dramatic change of public attitude and public behaviour, an opportunity to reverse that trend—to have more rail passengers, not fewer, and to get some of those cars off the road, especially for long journeys.
I shall always regard this period in the House as one of great sadness, because that opportunity to reverse passenger numbers must mean more railway trains, more carriages on our railway and more newly built modern trains, such as the Networkers, which are now being built in York for the Kent coast, and it is tragic, and sad for ABB York, that all that will happen too late.
I invite any Member of the House who is in the York region in the next few months to go and watch the gleaming new trains in the sidings being finished off—they will be running on lines in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) before too long—and to realise that, by Christmas, the carriage works will be silent and, just as we are about to embark on a period when we need more new trains, that modernised carriage works will be closed.
I mentioned earlier the need for more infrastructure investment and the fact that, in my eyes, that can come only from the private sector rather than the public sector. There is a parallel with what has happened in other privatisations in the past 10 years.
The water industry is perhaps the best example to draw attention to because, undoubtedly, for 25 to 30 years there was chronic under-investment in the water industry by successive Governments. That has not meant that putting that right has been popular with customers, who now must pay greater water charges for the improvement in infrastructure that must take place. However, had we left the water industry in the public sector, we should not have had the investment programme currently in place through

the private sector, which is now so necessary. Those hon. Members who scream and shout about the extra charges to customers must recognise that there is a public demand for higher standards in water and in sewerage.
The same argument applies to the railways. The public want a better rail system—of that I am in no doubt. But the funding for it will not come out of the Treasury, whichever party is in Government.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting comparison between British Rail privatisation and the water industry. Does he agree that a more accurate comparison would be with the deregulation of buses? During the deregulation of buses, there has been little evidence of huge investment in better and improved buses, and no evidence of extra passengers on those buses.

Mr. Greenway: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I began my remarks, and I am not sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were listening at that time. I was saying that, in the Greater York area, the privatisation or deregulation of buses has led to the best bus service that York has had for years. There has been an increase in the number of passengers and there have been new buses—big, medium and small. The Labour-controlled York city council is now proud of the service that is being provided. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's argument stands up.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I was at one with the comments on the Treasury made by the hon. Gentleman before the intervention of the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones). There is no doubt that, whichever political persuasion holds power in this country, the Treasury sees its remit as being to release as few funds as humanly possible, and it always will do.
I do not understand another aspect of the approach of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. By all means we can give the management of the railways more commercial freedom and flexibility to raise money and invest—I see no difficulty with that and it is not an ideological issue. The problem is that hiving the railways off into a multitude of individual companies and separating them from Railtrack goes way beyond the rational realisation of the policy that I think the hon. Gentleman, as a constituency Member, would want to see, and on which I agree with him.

Mr. Greenway: I am not totally out of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. If he waits until the end of my remarks, which I am coming to shortly, he may hear me say what he has been saying, but in a different way.
We have a structure which has been agreed upon, whether or not it is the right one or could have been better. I am not an expert in such matters and am not in a position to make a judgment. However, the hon. Member for York and I set up the York Railway Forum. In the early stages of that forum, it was clear to us, certainly to me, that a great deal of work and effort by British Rail employees, from board level to shop floor workers, had been put into creating the new structure. To stop it now and tear it up would create an even bigger hiatus than the hon. Gentleman alleges has resulted from privatisation.
Many of the present problems, such as the closure of the ABB carriage works, have occurred because the process has taken far too long. It is six years since we


privatised the British Rail engineering carriage works. There is no question—even ABB itself says—that, three to five years down the line, there will undoubtedly be a huge increase in demand for new trains in the private sector. I should like to have seen the process speeded up, which is why I feel that the situation at ABB is so sad.
I have taken up quite enough time, but I want to make one more point. In essence, far from blaming the current difficulties on the privatisation process on which the Government have embarked, the House and Parliament as a whole should now, as they should have done before, recognise the inevitability of what is happening and embrace it with far more enthusiasm. Even in this debate, the House cannot obtain a clear message from the Opposition about what they would do with the railways were they in Government. That is a clear recognition that they know that, were they to form the next Government, there is no blank cheque for the railways or for any other public sector industry.
To conclude and to put the final cherry on the cake of my argument, I referred a minute or so ago to the York Railway Forum, which we established three years or so ago to talk about York's future as a railway centre. York city council commissioned a report from railway consultants Steer, Davies and Gleave. The report's chief recommendation was that York—the city council, the chambers of commerce and all the industries represented in that great city—should embrace privatisation with enthusiasm. The report suggested that York should be promoted as a railway centre, but we are not doing that.
I can only commend that philosophy to the House, because I fervently believe that if we want a railway in the future of which we can be proud, we can achieve that only through private sector finance. I simply say to my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London, "For goodness, sake, let's get on with it."

Mr. Peter Luff: This afternoon's debate has been interesting for at least two reasons. First, I thought that it was a Liberal debate, but Government Members have made all the constructive contributions—indeed, virtually all the contributions. One Back-Bench Labour Member has spoken and no Back-Bench Liberals—there have been only three of them in the House throughout the debate. It must be a Government debate after all.

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Had he been longer in the House, he would know that, in a three-hour debate such as today's, we are not entitled to more than one speech at the beginning and one at the end. We could not intervene even if we wished to do so.

Mr. Luff: At least the Liberal Democrats could have come to listen to the hon. Gentleman, but they did not even do that.
The other interesting feature about this debate was the disappointing speech of the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). It was long on waffle and short on facts. His speech consisted largely of a series of assertions in which he suggested that the reason for the debate was the Government's ideology. I should remind him that the

reason for the debate is not the Government's ideology, but an attempt to correct the failures of the Labour party's ideology.
As I said in the House in April last year, it was the Labour party whose approach to the nationalisation of the railways created all the difficulties in the first place. The Labour party created that ugly monster, the British Transport Commission, on 1 January 1948. Under Labour's Transport Act 1947, it had a duty to provide an integrated system of transport in Britain. But, as "The Great Western Railway History"—the official history, published in 1984—reveals:
Sir Cyril Hurcomb, Chairman of the BTC … made the mistake of organising rail, road and water in five separate Executives and … selected incompatible people for the Railway Executive, which left him with no hope of integrating road with rail, and no chance of integrating the four railways.
Nationalisation destroyed the hope of an integrated transport system in this country. The Government are setting about trying to correct that, which I welcome.
Declaring interests seems to have been the flavour of this debate. My interest is rather modest: I am a shareholder in two private railways, in which I take pride. The first is the Severn valley railway, in which I am a founder shareholder and where I recently took my first course in learning to drive a steam locomotive. The second is Eurotunnel, which is the most dramatic example of the contribution that can be made by private capital towards providing transport infrastructure for the next century.
I am a reasonably regular rail user and have benefited from the investment made in the Worcester to London services, which has transformed the use and quality of that line. I also look forward to benefiting from the upgrading of the west coast main line, which will be brought about by this Government's policies, using the private sector in imaginative ways. I believe that the railways should be allowed to benefit from privatisation in just the same way as all the other privatised utilities have benefited.
I recently gleaned intelligence from a journalist that the Labour party intends to target me because of my support for rail privatisation. I look forward to deriving some benefit from that in my constituency. I welcome anything that the Labour party can do to stimulate debate about rail privatisation in my constituency. We will win that debate, because the services will improve while Labour Members continue their foolish policy of support for industrial action that will only undermine the railway's long-term future.
My real concern is the interests of my constituents—particularly those who do not have access to private transport. The interests of the passengers are at the forefront of my mind when I offer the Government my unqualified support on rail privatisation. We have heard the figures about the declining usage of the railways, but they are worth repeating. In 1953, 17 per cent. of all passenger journeys were by rail; in 1963, the figure was 12 per cent.; in 1973, 8 per cent; and in 1995,5 per cent. Something is going wrong, and the problem must be corrected. We need a new policy approach; not more of the same tried, tested and failed policies of the Labour party.
The same decline has occurred in the transport of goods by rail. The percentage of goods carried by rail has declined from 28 per cent. in 1953 to only 5 per cent. in 1995. That is not good enough, and we must do something to correct the imbalance.
I am not one who believes that everything is wrong with our railways; I believe that we have many reasons to rejoice in the way that our railways are functioning at present. The railways have an excellent record of coping with the needs of disabled passengers. There is no legislation in place, but ours is probably the best railway in the world in terms of the accessibility of its rolling stock to the disabled. All InterCity coaches are now accessible to people in wheelchairs, and I am told that there are more toilets for disabled people on British Rail trains than on all the trains in Europe combined. We should recognise that good things are happening on our railways.
There is much talk about trains in this country running late. If I could arrive as reliably at my destination by car as I can by train, I should be a happy man. We think nothing of adding half an hour or three quarters of an hour to our estimated journey times by car, but the same thing is viewed as an abject failure when it occurs on the railways. The Eurostar receives appalling treatment whenever its service fails. It does not happen often, but it receives an incredible amount of press coverage when it does. How often do those who travel to Paris by air—I do not do it often, Mr. Deputy Speaker—face an hour or two-hour delay from air traffic control? There is no coverage by the tabloid press in those circumstances, but it is a scandal whenever a train breaks down. We do not serve our railways well, and they deserve better treatment.
InterCity is the only main-line railway in Europe that makes a profit and I think that it still has more trains running at more than 100 mph than any other railway in Europe. I concede that there is a lot to be done if we are to build on existing strengths. Labour Members referred extensively to through ticketing. I do not think that the marketing of our railways is adequate. The ticketing structure is extremely complex—it is so complex that Labour Members obviously do not understand that through ticketing does not exist at present—and interoperability is a real problem.
There is a complex framework of savers, supersavers and awayday tickets. One can see the notices at Paddington which say that a certain ticket is not allowed on this or that train; it is a complex issue. I do not believe that the railways are getting their marketing right, and that is one of the central reasons why I strongly support privatisation.
We have heard about the track record of other privatised industries, each of which has improved the quality of the service that it offers to customers. The same thing will happen with the railways. On 23 January 1994, the Financial Times wisely said:
If the railways were working well, there would be an argument for leaving them alone. As it is, even with some of the highest fares in Europe they are under invested; passengers are still too often made to feel as though they are an incumbrance to the running of the railway, rather than the reason for it; and the trains do not run on time.
I think that the Financial Times is being a little hard on British Rail with that last remark. The railways need the injection of enterprise, flair, marketing expertise, management skill and new sources of capital that privatisation will bring.
In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) talked about accountability. The accountability that matters for the railways is its accountability to its passengers. That accountability is

sadly lacking at present. I believe that privatisation will make the train-operating companies accountable to their passengers.
I believe that the passenger service requirements and brand-new contractual conditions on operators will also play a vital part in improving accountability. At present, British Rail can run down its services on a line without being accountable to anyone. Now we have guarantees of service—I know what the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) said, but I still see them that way—never before enjoyed by the people of Worcester.
When the PSRs were initially put out to consultation, scare stories were circulated by people who claimed to be friends of the railways but who only undermined them. They said that the service would be reduced from three to two InterCity trains per day. That is nonsense; for the first time, we will have a guaranteed InterCity service. Someone living in Worcester who wants to travel to London reasonably regularly will now know that a rush-hour train will travel in each direction. That is guaranteed under the PSR, and it is a huge step forward.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's logic. Is he saying, as a Member of Parliament and a rail commuter, that he is happier knowing that there will definitely be one fewer train per day than having one more train per day? He seems to be applying some bizarre logic.

Mr. Luff: There they go again. Two trains are guaranteed, the existing trains will still run and the Great Western managing director has said that he plans to run more services, not fewer. I will quote from the press release. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked a question, so he should at least have the decency to listen to the answer. The Great Western Trains press release of 31 January this year states:
The timetable plan for May 1995 maintains the current level of services and consideration is being given to the introduction of additional ones".
It may come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman, but these things must be planned. I know that Labour Members do not understand the private sector, but it is a little embarrassing when they reveal their ignorance so spectacularly.
Levels of service are important, but the small things matter as well—they show that the railways care about their passengers. The standard of service is improving locally as the rail network prepares for privatisation. The new Thames timetable for the service operating between Worcester and London is a radical improvement on everything that went before it. It lists the stations and states what facilities are available at each. It sets out the route very clearly and, most interestingly—Labour Members would do well to listen to this—it lists the times of buses connecting with the rail service. The so-called fragmented railway has produced an integrated timetable which bears testimony to the success of the Government's plans.
There have been other improvements, such as better on-board service on the 125s—all first-class passengers are treated as though they are actually wanted on the train, and receive newspapers and a free drinks trolley service. The new timetables that are on display at my local stations enable people who do not understand how the railways operate to learn what trains go where. Those improvements are a direct result of the Government's plans.
Things will only get better. Some problems need to be addressed, but the Government have fostered a creative tension in the railways, rather than a complacent, monolithic bureaucracy. It means that individual companies are fighting for market share and for customers—and hopefully they will fight Railtrack from time to time. Railtrack still has a lot to answer for locally. The weeds at Shrub Hill station are a disgrace.

Mr. Keith Hill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Luff: No, I will not give way again. I am winding down my remarks and I wish to allow my hon. Friends time to speak in the debate.
Visitors to Worcester would not know that Shrub Hill is a railway station because there is no sign outside it. That will not be good enough for the new train-operating companies, and they will demand improvements to Worcester Shrub Hill station. That is one of the reasons why I welcome rail privatisation.
Investment and the alleged failure of investment has been discussed. I believe that the Labour and Liberal parties must bear a heavy share of the responsibility for that problem. Their attacks on the privatisation process are creating uncertainty and frightening passengers, and they should cease. We have the policies necessary to revive the railways, and those policies have my unqualified support.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: The debate is fascinating because the enthusiasm for the future of the railways among Conservative Members is conspicuously absent among the Opposition, even in getting Back-Bench Members to speak. The other fascinating aspect of the debate is the fact that the Liberal party has at last managed to crawl to the left of the Labour party. We heard a diatribe against privatisation from the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), while the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) sat on the fence, giving no commitment and no policy. There is not even a Labour amendment to the motion on the Order Paper. Almost all Labour Back Benchers appear to have fled the field of battle during the debate, and we have heard nothing from them.
We should put the privatisation of the railways into context and the best way to do that is to compare it with the last great transport privatisation—that of British Airways. I went to the Library and looked up the Second Reading debate on the Civil Aviation Bill on 19 November 1979. It was the first step towards privatising British Airways. On that occasion, the Labour spokesman had something positive to say. Mr. Stanley Clinton Davis wound up the debate and it is instructive to examine what he said on that occasion:
The Bill is yet another example of the Government's doctrinal spasms. It is an ill-conceived scheme. It does nothing to engender confidence in the airline, it provokes great anxiety and puts a question mark over the future of British Airways. It does not ensure that the investment programme of British Airways can be satisfactorily completed, which should be a condition precedent to any sensible aviation policy."—[Official Report, 19 November 1979; Vol.974, c. 153–54.]
What has happened to British Airways in the 16 years since then? It has expanded its network and its services, and it has gained the accolade of being the world's

favourite airline. It has carried out a vast multi-billion-pound investment programme. One has only to look at the dozens of Boeing 747s and brand new airbuses that it has taken on to provide improved services to its customers. It is now the first European airline to have taken delivery of the new Boeing 777. So much for Labour's predictions. It is not surprising that the hon. Member for Fife, Central did not dare make any predictions today.

Mr. McLeish: Will the hon. Gentleman address the fundamental point about how British Rail is being privatised? Does he agree that, if an organisation is privatised as a single entity, it will differ in a number of ways from an organisation that is chopped into 95 pieces and then flogged off to the highest bidder? Let us have a specific answer on that point.

Mr. Arnold: I shall turn to precisely that point, having first commented on the great Liberal speeches in the debate in 1979. I searched through Hansard for that date, and what did I find from the Liberal party, as it then was? I found no speech, and no vote. Not one Liberal Member spoke or voted. The Liberal Democrats are absent from the Chamber this afternoon. Then, as now, they were part-time Members of Parliament, with not too much to say about privatisation.

Mr. Tyler: Even the hon. Gentleman should be able to calculate that a far larger proportion of the Liberal Democrat parliamentary party than of the Conservative party has been here throughout the debate.

Mr. Arnold: That does not say much for the number of Liberal Democrats who are elected—which is not surprising, in view of what we have just heard.
In 1979, the Labour party went flat out against privatisation and the Liberals sat on the fence. Today, the Liberals are flat out against privatisation and the Labour party has not much to say of any significance.
As for the point raised by the hon. Member for Fife, Central, British Rail is being carved up into more sensible chunks, so that it can be managed better and deliver a better service in the private sector. To draw the analogy with British Airways once again, more than 100 airlines come into Heathrow and Gatwick. Each one is a separate company. When the railways are privatised, a multiplicity of franchisees will provide a service, some of them on exactly the same lines and passing through exactly the same stations.
All the airlines land at airports which represent yet another successful privatisation. British airports are managed not only by the British Airports Authority, which also manages other airports, but by other private companies. Railtrack will operate the railway stations and the signalling and lease them to appropriate operators. The same has occurred in air transport, where air traffic control is another separate agency.
What about ticketing? Only a few months ago, the Labour party put out the most magnificent scare stories about ticketing. Almost immediately after privatisation, British Airways set up Galileo, the computerised ticketing service, so that outlets for information and the purchase of tickets on different airlines increased in multiples by hundreds and thousands. The idea that private railway


operators would not make the greatest effort to increase the outlets for tickets shows how much a part-time lecturer understands about private enterprise.

Mr. McLeish: As the hon. Gentleman is developing that argument, he should address the fundamental flaw in its foundations. When he talked about British Airways, did he mean the British Airports Authority? The simple premise of the argument that must be addressed is that British Railways is being broken up into 95 parts, whereas British Airways was not.

Mr. Arnold: That is the whole point. I was comparing the rail industry in Britain, which is traditionally one vast monolith, with the civil aviation industry, part of which was nationalised in British Airways and BAA.
In civil aviation, equipment is owned or leased. Likewise, the franchise operations for rolling stock will either get rolling stock from the rolling stock leasing companies or they will buy it.
A singularly important aspect is the prospect for the transfer of traffic from road to rail. I have always thought it extremely odd that we have a wide and integrated network of railways managed by one entity, but it has been unable to provide an infrastructure of freight farms for moving freight around the country. Despite all the advantages of the wide scale of the network, the nationalised British Rail has completely failed to get its act together to move freight around the country, and it failed to do that during a period in which the Government have put £54 billion into the railways since nationalisation.
Why has that not been achieved? British Rail argues that it is impossible to achieve it in such a small country as Britain, because the distances are so short that there is no point in loading freight on and off the railways. However, the channel tunnel makes that excuse no longer valid. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, freight can be carried from Glasgow to Milan by rail through the channel tunnel within 36 hours whereas it would take 72 hours by road. I believe that there will be a massive switch from road to rail, particularly for international traffic, harnessing the channel tunnel. However, any suggestion that that could be achieved by the nationalised monolith that is so fondly considered by the heart of the Labour party is absolutely hopeless. We need the flexibility of the private sector.
Another aspect worthy of rapid consideration is the channel tunnel rail link. My constituency has suffered from this ghastly business for the past eight years, but recently the rail link has passed from being a figment of the imagination of rail enthusiasts to a viable proposition. At the moment, we have rail capacity across Kent, but early in the next century we shall not. It is therefore sensible to build a brand new railway line which can carry high-speed traffic. If that is done, it should remain a passenger-only service and not extend to freight, which should stick to the lines that travel through southern Kent, which the Government rightly invested more than £1 billion in upgrading in recent years.
One Opposition Member mentioned a rumour that he was glad to put about, that Ebbsfleet station and the channel tunnel rail link onwards into London St. Pancras is not to be built. I have quizzed my hon. Friend the Minister, and I shall be grateful if, when he winds up, he will confirm yet again that the Government view Ebbsfleet station and the line onwards into St. Pancras as absolutely vita! and will not be cut. Ebbsfleet station would be most welcome. It would cut commuting time

from 50 minutes to 19 minutes. It would mean new developments which will create thousands of jobs in the area and new roads—if only Kent county council will get on with them. Scaremongering by Labour about Ebbsfleet station is extremely unhelpful and damaging.

Mr. Michael Stephen: The other day, a constituent of mine stopped me in the street and said, "I've got a bone to pick with you. I travelled on the railway to London recently. The train was slow, the carriages were dirty, the service arrived late and the staff were rude. You should never have privatised the railways." I had to remind him that the railway of which he was so critical was the good old nationalised railway that we all know and love. If it worked as well as it could and delivered the service that our constituents expect, there would be no need for the House to consider the matter—but clearly that is not the case.
I was not surprised to hear the usual negative speeches from Opposition Members, who have criticised every one of our privatisations—British Airways, the British Airports Authority, British Steel, British Telecom and British Gas. They were all wonderful industries, but they were costing the taxpayer £60 million a week before we started to privatise them. Today they deliver the same amount of money to the Exchequer every week.
The trouble with Labour is that it always sees things from the side of the producer, not the consumer—particularly if the producer happens to be a unionised worker. Labour Members criticise shareholders but do not seem to realise that most shareholders in today's privatised or nationalised industries are the pension funds of their own constituents. They complain about the family silver being sold off, but they were put up to that by a mischievous old gentleman from the Conservative side of the House: in fact, the family silver is still there and working for us better than ever before.
One is surprised to note that this is a Liberal Supply day, as two Liberal Members are all that can be mustered.

Mr. Tyler: Three.

Mr. Stephen: I apologise, but the Liberal leader has not been in the Chamber during the debate. No doubt he has been off studying the railways in Bosnia, and we shall have a full report from him when he returns. The Liberals have come out in their true colours as a first-class socialist party. It is they and not Labour who are threatening to renationalise the railway.
I had the privilege to spend a year as an Industry and Parliament Trust fellow with British Rail, so I can tell the House that we have a very good railway. I do not agree with the constituent who criticised that nationalised industry, but we can make it better. None of the managers I met is afraid of the private sector techniques and capital that will come to the industry—they want them. Managers told me that, in a nationalised industry, one can never manage or plan ahead, because one has to wait for the man from the Ministry to make up his mind: he does not often say no—the trouble is that he will not make up his mind at all. One cannot manage a business with such restraints. The managers said that, when they went to the Department for money to invest in new trains, track and stations, they were told to get in the queue behind the national health service, the schools and everyone else.
Strikes are another reason that the railway has not delivered as a nationalised industry. The latest shenanigan by the rail unions that is about to disrupt the lives of the travelling public is a good example of the unrestrained and irresponsible use of national union power, which must be broken in the public interest. That is a good reason, if there were no other, for privatising the railway and breaking it up into the 92 parts of which the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) constantly reminds the House.
As for subsidy, Opposition Members are trying to scare our constituents by suggesting that uneconomic lines will be closed. In fact, the opposite is true: the uneconomic lines are most likely to be attractive to private sector operators because they will be paid for operating them, whereas they will have to pay for the privilege of running economic lines. Opposition Members claim that we are pursuing privatisation out of pure political dogma, but it is they who are being dogmatic in refusing to put privatisation to the test. They refuse to give our constituents the opportunity to ascertain whether private sector capital and management techniques can improve Britain's railway.
The Opposition regale us with silly ideas of private sector operators cramming our constituents into cattle trucks and sending ticket prices through the roof. Do the Opposition not realise that private sector operators will want the public to ride the railway and pay for the privilege of using their trains? That is all I have to say.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: It has been an interesting debate. The hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) said it all, in a prophetic statement. He was referring to this debate, but his remark could apply equally well to the Government. He said that we were running out of time.
That is very much the case, because the Government are running out of time in terms of both the parliamentary calendar as the next general election approaches, and their leadership options, which the Conservatives semi-resolved last week with the "least worst option"—as the Minister who will be winding up described the Prime Minister in ringing tones. The Government's privatisation policy, which a number of Conservative Back Benchers have endorsed to various extents, will prove an increasing nightmare for the Government as the next general election approaches.
I will begin with a friendly sideways comment on the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). He and I have been happy to share a number of public platforms in Scotland on rail anti-privatisation issues. I have also shared platforms with the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), and we have had some political effect in the broad-based campaign that we have fought.
I was a little disappointed at the paucity of contributions from Labour's Back Benches. It is a sad reflection on the procedures and customs of the House that a Liberal debate on the important issue of rail privatisation is considered a lower-grade affair. If the issue is important, Labour Members should be campaigning on it, and not leave so much of the debate to Conservative Back Benchers.
It is also a shame that the problem for Labour is not north of the border, where our positions have been clear and robust. I suspect that the difficulties or constraints

confronting the hon. Member for Fife, Central emphatically arise south of the border. I have no doubt that mainstream Labour opinion would endorse the Liberal Democrat motion. If there was an unambiguous political signal from the Opposition parties that a golden share or a controlling public interest would be secured if and when Railtrack disappears completely into the private sector, that would have an important business as well as political effect on Railtrack's saleability.
Although Labour was unable to be unequivocal in its support for us tonight, I hope that the fact that Labour was not wholly dismissive of our arguments is an encouraging sign for the future, and that we may yet see Labour's leader being rather more emphatic than he has felt able to be hitherto. I believe that that is one case that we could win.
It is not the fault of the hon. Member for Fife, Central, because it is not his remit, and I know that he will be relieved by that, but the one transport issue—that of London taxis—into which the Labour party has ventured and boldly gone, proved to be an unambiguous fiasco. The leader of the Labour party intervened, and the entire policy had to be turned upside down. I think that the Labour Front-Bench team are endorsing that view.

Mr. McLeish: indicated assent.

Mr. Kennedy: I say in a friendly way to the Labour party that we live in hope. Clause IV still lives in the hearts of some people, and perhaps the Front-Bench members of the Labour party should remember that.
I comment on where, as usual, most of the entertainment came from this afternoon: the Conservative Back Benches. The most friendly thing that I can say to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) is that there seemed to be some philosophical confusion in his arguments about the merits of privatisation. He seemed to argue that, because direct services to his constituency had been withdrawn and there was no guarantee that they would be restored, the uncertainty that at least one day they could be restored was in itself an emphatic endorsement of rail privatisation.

Mr. Hawkins: rose—

Mr. Kennedy: I shall give way, but I am terribly tight for time.

Mr. Hawkins: The matter that I raised was that—already—a private sector company plans to reintroduce direct through services from Scotland to my constituency and from London to my constituency as soon as it is able to do so. That would replace a withdrawal of service from the old nationalised British Rail.

Mr. Kennedy: We will watch that space with interest—as, I am sure, will the hon. Gentleman's constituents. They may be looking to fill a space with a different personage at the next general election. There might be a triumph of hope over experience.
The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) has accepted lock, stock and barrel all the assurances issued by the Regional Railways managers, but he does not seem to appreciate how the system works. The one prediction that I shall risk is this: as this Parliament goes on, we shall see at Prime Minister's Question Time, Transport questions and other occasions such as this debate, more and more Conservative Back Benchers getting to their feet


to protest about the fact that effective local consultation has been short-circuited by the rail passenger franchising director, and that they, as local Members, do not have the opportunity to put the case vigorously and rigorously, as their constituents will want them to, for the retention of rail services. The penny is just beginning to drop with some Conservative Members, but clearly, judging from the speeches, not with as many as it will do in due course.
I commend the hon. Member the Worcester (Mr. Luff) for his practical support for the railways, both private and public. He speaks with great enthusiasm and passion. I agree with him about the need for better marketing and promotion. There is an attitude problem in this country towards our railways, and a debate such as this provides an important opportunity to underscore it.
The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) spoke with great, burning support and enthusiasm for the Government. I can only assume that that is why he resigned as a member of it last week. So enthusiastic is he that he voted for the person who stood against the present leader of his party.
We now have a ray of hope, because the hard man who was in charge of the Department of Transport has been moved to the hard place of Conservative central office and been replaced by the bicycling baronet himself. I regret that we did not hear from the Secretary of State for Transport this evening, but he is present.
The right hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) has commendable independent spirit, which is why he got himself sacked under his previous leader and then reappointed. All of us interested in the future of our railways hope that he will follow what appear to be the discussions that he was having with the Secretary of State for Scotland earlier this afternoon, not least because the consultation on the passenger service requirement for Scotland ends tomorrow.
The franchising director, Roger Salmon, and Ministers must be impressed by the quality and the quantity of the submissions—which include one from the likes of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, which is, after all, a Government agency—that the threatened services should be reprieved. It is healthier at the end of day for such strategic, political decisions to be taken by politicians and Ministers. They should not be farmed off and taken by bureaucrats.
Although we have had to resort to the Scottish courts, it is scarcely ideal either that such decisions are taken by judges on the bench. As somebody with a sense of the constitution, I think that the Secretary of State for Transport will share that view privately. I hope that he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland can therefore come to a sensible arrangement as a result of discussions which have already taken place.
At the centre is the question of responsibility. There is no doubt that the Government, as in some other areas—the health service being an obvious example—have sought to move the stigma of rail rundowns or closures away from Transport Ministers and, indeed, the Scottish Office or territorial Ministers generally.
It is now farcical when one wants to complain about a threatened reduction or withdrawal of service. One raises a question in the House and asks the Minister concerned, who says that it is an operational matter for British Rail or ScotRail management. When one talks to them, they say that it is a question of subsidy, which is decided by

the franchising director. When one talks to Roger Salmon, he says that the budget is decided by the Ministry of Transport.
It is chaotic, circular nonsense, in place of what used to be something approximating coherent decision making and a sense of ministerial accountability, for what is, after all, something still emphatically in the public domain. That is the great contradiction and weakness at the centre of the entire privatisation process.
In the course of this short debate, we have not learnt a lot more about what the Labour party stands for, we have learnt a little more about the Liberal Democrats' view, and we know that there is a variety of opinion on the Conservative Back Benches. I shall end on an optimistic note, because inevitably in such a debate the focus is on the negative.
The channel link is a marvellous engineering achievement. Any hon. Member who has recently used either the Paris or the Brussels link for business or parliamentary activity could not have failed to be impressed by it. The days of being stacked above Charles de Gaulle airport or stuck on the M4 going out to Heathrow are behind us because of the convenience and the quality of travel that the rail link affords. It is therefore something to celebrate, and it is an important signal for the vibrant future of this country's railways, especially as we are plugged into the continent of Europe.
There is also an awful metaphor at the centre of that achievement, as any hon. Member who has travelled on the service will know. It is galling to trundle through the south of England's green and pleasant land at a certain rate, only to cross the channel and accelerate to a fantastically greater rate as one passes through France, Belgium or wherever.
In the words of our motion, that is surely the central point. On this side of the channel, under this Government's policy, there has been a fundamental lack of investment in a rail infrastructure. That will not be improved by privatisation, and I hope that wiser counsels may yet prevail, given the change in ministerial personnel.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I want to start where the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) has just left off. His last statement demonstrated the patent absurdity of the motion. He seems to have forgotten that the channel tunnel rail link is being constructed by private sector finance, and that a Labour Government cancelled a channel tunnel project which was to have been taken forward by the taxpayer. It is precisely the inadequacy of the state in such circumstances that leads Conservative Members to their fundamental belief in the advantages of privatisation.
I congratulate all my hon. Friends, who followed the excellent lead of my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads, on making this an interesting debate. My hon. Friends the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff), for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins), for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) and for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) all made valuable contributions to the debate. I shall comment on them later, but first I want to deal with a few detailed points.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye referred to Anglo-Scottish sleeper services. As he knows, the consultation period ends tomorrow. All the


representations which have been made will be carefully considered by the franchising director. I know that he is aware—I want to make it clear, as the House should also be aware—that, in the intervening period, those services will continue. I should also make it clear that—beyond sleeper services—the PSR for ScotRail as a whole essentially protects the entire May 1995 timetable. That is a new guarantee of services for the next seven years.

Mr. Tyler: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman is intruding on his own time—which may be why he wants to intervene.

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the Minister. I think that this point is important.
The Minister just said that all sleeper services to Scotland would continue. Does he include the sleeper service from Plymouth, which has already been withdrawn?

Mr. Norris: I understand that services that are not in being will not continue. My statement was straightforward: I made it clear that, while the franchising director is considering the representations that he has received in relation to Anglo-Scottish sleeper services, existing services would continue.
The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) is a great transport buff, and always makes an interesting and, indeed, emotional speech; but he really must not let hyperbole run away with him in support of an already thin argument. He presented an extraordinary notion of fees and the cost of privatisation. That is one of the great fairy tales of British political life: the hon. Gentleman decides on a figure, and then doubles it.

Mr. Keith Hill: What figure?

Mr. Norris: I will tell the hon. Gentleman the exact figure: indeed, that was my purpose in referring to his remarks. The hon. Gentleman should not worry about doubling the figure, however; the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) multiplied it by four. Whatever the figure advanced as the cost of this extraordinarily complex exercise, the Opposition parties generally add a nought and know that they will be on the safe side.
In fact, the figure is neither £240 million nor £700 million. Between April 1991 and May 1995, Department of Transport consultancy fees amounted to £29.9 million, costs of the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising to £16.9 million and the rail regulator's costs to £4.4 million. That gives us a total of £51.2 million.
It is fair to include the costs borne by British Rail and Railtrack, which will probably account for some £72 million. My maths tells me that the figure is around £123.2 million, not the £240 million mentioned by the hon. Member for Streatham or the £700 million that the hon. Member for North Cornwall implied would be spent by the end of the year.
Opposition Members, however, roll into the extraordinary figures that they present every part of the restructuring of an industry that is desperately trying to drag itself from the nationalised mess of the last half century into the modern world. Conservative Members, who made that point themselves, were perfectly clear about the value of the exercise.
The hon. Member for Streatham mentioned the travelcard. He really should know better. He is aware of the value that Conservative Members have consistently placed on the card, but he has allowed me to say just one more time that we remain entirely committed to its value and to the millions who benefit from it in London. He knows that, during the time—more than three years—that I have been Minister for Transport in London, I have made it clear that that commitment will continue. We have no hidden designs on the travelcard.
The hon. Gentleman also knows perfectly well that there can be no change to the PSR without the franchising director's approval, and that any proposal for a significant alteration in the level of service would have to be subjected to consultation with the rail users consultative committee and local authorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham mentioned Ebbsfleet in connection with the channel tunnel rail link. I can confirm that the Government's position has not changed; they continue to regard Ebbsfleet as an important part of the rail link project. My hon. Friend also raised an important point, provoking the hon. Member for Fife, Central to his feet several times: he spoke of the great socialist belief in the monolith—the idea that, universally, bigger must somehow be better.
In some businesses—aviation is arguably one—size is indeed a virtue, but I believe that my hon. Friend was entirely right. In British Rail, the monolith has too often proved inflexible, unmanageable and unresponsive to customer demand. We must deliver the system into manageable units that offer a specific, focused, user-friendly service, maximising value for money and seeking out new markets and investment opportunities and more effective management.

Mr. McLeish: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Norris: No, I do not have time.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall presented an extraordinary sight. As several of my hon. Friends have pointed out, we are now faced with the remarkable prospect of the Liberal party rushing far to the left of new Labour—as I believe we are now entitled to call it. The Liberal party is now the only party that calls for renationalisation. I noted, as the House will have noted, that the hon. Member for Fife, Central squirmed to avoid the very commitment that Liberal Members invited him to make. What an extraordinary proposition.
Just when we thought that a Conservative might be speaking, however, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) intervened in his own pithy way: "But you lot were in favour of it a few years ago, weren't yer?" I can assist the hon. Gentleman. Earlier today, I turned to a speech made in 1990 by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), in the aptly named Empress ballroom in Blackpool. He was extolling the virtues not of nationalisation, but, on this occasion—for goodness knows which way the weathervane of Liberal opinion was swinging on the afternoon in question—of privatisation.
The right hon. Gentleman said:
In some parts of the US, citizens who use, for instance, solar panels to generate electricity have the right to put any excess they generate back into the grid, reversing their meters"—
and odd phrase, that, but we will not dwell on it—
cutting their bills and providing power for industry.
So free competition there makes each citizen a power generator"—


my, there is a Liberal phrase to conjure with—
saving costs, capitalising on the potential of alternative energy and protecting the environment—all at the same time.
And if we bring competition to the utilities, why not to British Rail?
I have the words before me. They are in a Liberal press release, so I suppose the party was proud of them at the time.
In the words of my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State, however, there is more. The right hon. Member for Yeovil went on to say:
Nothing would increase the volume of rail freight more than allowing private industry to compete on the same basis as road freight.

Mr. Tyler: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Norris: No.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil went on:
Competition … is not an ideological talisman, still less an economic gimmick. It is simply a way of ensuring that the customer—the citizen—comes first.
Amen to that, say Conservative Members.
As we all know, however—I suspect that Labour Members know it too—the Liberals will say whatever they consider appropriate and convenient at the time. We are now confronted by the extraordinary spectacle of a Liberal leader—a man who has, on occasion, suggested that he might actually take a rein or two of office—saying that Liberal Democrats will buy back 51 per cent. of shares in Railtrack at the issue price, or the market price. How much will it cost? Half the value of Railtrack: a little more than £1 billion, or probably a good deal less.
Given that the Government's total spending bill is £300,000 million a year £200 million is perfectly affordable, according to the right hon. Gentleman. It is cheap, he says. The right hon. Gentleman reminds me of the noble Lord Healey, who once said, "A billion here, a billion there, and soon you are talking about quite serious money."
The reality is that the leader of a party which seriously pretends to office is so cavalier with public funds as to produce such an extraordinary statement. That is the leader of the Liberal Democrats' commitment, which he believes to be is clear, costed and responsible. The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I quibble with that last description.
The Government support the privatisation of the railways because we know the benefits that privatisation has brought, particularly to transport. Several of my hon. Friends have referred to the historic change which has been brought about in the fortunes of British Airways, a company which was a basket case but which has been transformed into a world leader. What is more, BA is operating in the harshest environment of all—that of free international competition—and still manages to out-perform its rivals, who often receive literally billions of pounds of state handouts.
BA's performance owes considerably to its privatisation, as does the performance of the British Airports Authority. The BAA is wreaking a huge change in the environment of airports, and is now winning contracts in the United States.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I beg to move that the question be now put.

Mr. Norris: That was an interesting intervention from the hon. Gentleman, and seems to suggest that the Liberal

Democrats have decided that perhaps this debate was not a good idea after all. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman hoped that we might glide smoothly into the area of health policy, so that the Liberal Democrats could then grab every shroud and follow every ambulance they can as they think up yet another farrago of nonsense which they can dress up as some commitment to policy.
The truth may hurt, but the reality is clear. Whether we are referring to BA, BAA, National Express, the privatisation of ports or—as my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale properly said—bus privatisation, the reality is that, in every case, privatisation and deregulation have brought substantial advantages.
It is extraordinary that we are debating this issue tonight. No serious economy anywhere in the world would move the kind of motion that we have seen from the Liberal Democrats tonight. The Russians are now perfectly clear that they believe in privatisation. In Nicaragua and El Salvador, one can hear the virtues of the free market expounded. But in Yeovil and in Ross, Cromarty and Skye, it is back to nationalisation and all its evils. One of my right hon and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher's greatest achievements was to set in motion a move towards the liberation of state industry which has been followed the world over, and with good reason.
We will go on to deliver the privatisation of rail services because that will liberate investment opportunities in a way unfettered by the public sector borrowing requirement. Privatisation will liberate management and will allow it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South suggested, to offer rail services that have been removed by the nationalised railway. Private operators are keen—not just in Blackpool, but in many other areas of the country—to restore such services, and they know how to run them profitably.
A change is already happening in terms of the way in which the train operating companies are showing concern for customers—which is, of course, at the heart of the private sector. They are building a modern railway that is efficient and responds to customers' demands, and is not dominated, as the nationalised railway has been, by the producers rather than by the consumers. If hon. Members from both sides of this House want to see the development of a railway fit for the 21st century, they must reject the motion and support the Government amendment.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:

The House divided: Ayes 49, Noes 262

[7.04 pm


AYES


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Foster, Don (Bath)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Harvey, Nick


Barnes, Harry
Home Robertson, John


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Bermingham, Gerald
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Callaghan, Jim
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lewis, Terry


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Livingstone, Ken


Chidgey, David
Loyden, Eddie


Corston, Jean
Lynne, Ms Liz


Cunningham, Roseanna
Mackinlay, Andrew


Dafis, Cynog
Maclennan, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Madden, Max


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Maddock, Diana


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Mahon, Alice






Marek, Dr John
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Timms, Stephen


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Tyler, Paul


Parry, Robert
Wallace, James



Wareing, Robert N


Rendel, David
Wigley, Dafydd


Salmond, Alex



Simpson, Alan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Simon Hughes.


Spearing, Nigel





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Alexander, Richard
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Faber, David


Amess, David
Fabricant, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fishburn, Dudley


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Forman, Nigel


Ashby, David
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Forth, Eric


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
French, Douglas


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fry, Sir Peter


Bates, Michael
Gallie, Phil


Bellingham, Henry
Gardiner, Sir George


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gare-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Booth, Hartley
Garnier, Edward


Boswell, Tim
Gill, Christopher


Bowis, John
Gillan, Cheryl


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brandreth, Gyles
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brazier, Julian
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gorst, Sir John


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burns, Simon
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Burt, Alistair
Grylls, Sir Michael


Butler, Peter
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hague, William


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carrington, Matthew
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carttiss, Michael
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Cash, William
Hannam, Sir John


Chapman, Sydney
Hargreaves, Andrew


Clappison, James
Harris, David


Clark, Dr Michael
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hawkins, Nick


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hawksley, Warren


Coe, Sebastian
Hayes, Jerry


Colvin, Michael
Heald, Oliver


Congdon, David
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Conway, Derek
Hendry, Charles


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hicks, Robert


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Couchman, James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cran, James
Horam, John


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Day, Stephen
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Dicks, Terry
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Dover, Den
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Duncan, Alan
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Hunter, Andrew


Dunn, Bob
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Durant, Sir Anthony
Jack, Michael


Elletson, Harold
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Jenkin, Bernard


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Jessel, Toby





Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robatnan, Andrew


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Key, Robert
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knapman, Roger
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knox, Sir David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Sims, Roger


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Legg, Barry
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Leigh, Edward
Soames, Nicholas


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Speed, Sir Keith


Lidington, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lightbown, David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lord, Michael
Spink, Dr Robert


Luff, Peter
Spring, Richard


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sproat, Iain


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


MacKay, Andrew
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stephen, Michael


Madel, Sir David
Stem, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stewart, Allan


Malone, Gerald
Streeter, Gary


Mans, Keith
Sweeney, Walter


Marland, Paul
Sykes, John


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Thomason, Roy


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mills, Iain
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Thurnham, Peter


Moate, Sir Roger
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Monro, Sir Hector
Trend, Michael


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Trotter, Neville


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nelson, Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Walden, George


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Nicholls, Patrick
Waller, Gary


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Waterson, Nigel


Norris, Steve
Watts, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Whitney, Ray


Ottaway, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Paice, James
Widdecombe, Ann


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wilkinson, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wilshire, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Pickles, Eric
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wolfson, Mark


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wood, Timothy


Powell, William (Corby)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Rathbone, Tim



Redwood, Rt Hon John
Tellers for the Noes:


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Mr. Bowen Wells and Mr. David Willetts.


Richards, Rod

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House believes that privatisation offers the best opportunity for reversing the historic decline suffered by the railway system under nationalisation; and further believes that the privatisation of Railtrack offers the best future for Railtrack, and for passengers and freight users, by making greater use of private sector skills in managing the network and in providing greater scope for private capital investment in the upgrading of the railway system.

General Practitioners (Night Service)

Mr. Alex Carlile: I beg to move,
That this House shares general practitioners' concerns as to the continuing provision of a high quality service by night as well as day, given increasing demands; seeks to facilitate improved methods of work so that general practitioners can provide a more flexible, clinically appropriate and more modern way of providing emergency care outside normal hours which is right for patients, fair on the taxpayer and manageable by family doctors; believes there should be a right for general practitioners to transfer responsibility for out of hours care to another general practitioner without unnecessary interference by the Family Health Service Authority; supports the need for substantial, ongoing patient education campaigns on the appropriate use of the out of hours emergency service; and calls on the Government to take all reasonable steps to avoid industrial action by general practitioners.
It is a matter for regret that I have neither the attention—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Can we have some quiet on the Front Bench, please?

Mr. Carlile: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
It is a matter for regret that we do not have the benefit of the presence of the new Secretary of State for Health on the Government Front Bench. The right hon. Gentleman would not be coming fresh to the situation, because he was once a junior Minister in the Department of Health, and should have a ready understanding of the issues that we shall discuss.
If the Secretary of State had come here, we might have been reassured that he had reviewed the stubborn attitude of the Minister of State, who as usual is grinning from his position on the Front Bench. Had he been born in Cheshire, he would not have needed transmogrification. Of course, it is still open to the Secretary of State to wind up the debate, but I think that we shall find that he does not like working out of hours, and so has decided to send his junior partner out on this call.
It is worrying that we should have a dispute of the kind that now exists on out-of-hours provision between Ministers, representing the Government, and general practitioners. It is extraordinary how the Government have managed to make fervent opponents out of a traditionally moderate profession. It is perhaps a pity that the Minister of State, who is present tonight, did not follow the slogans of his own patient education campaign in relation to this issue. One of those slogans, which one sees on surgery walls, reads, pithily, "Be nice, think twice." I realise that, for this Minister, that would have presented a formidable triple challenge.
Perhaps the Minister might take advantage of another of the slogans of the Government's rather weak patient education campaign: "Help us to help you." That is a bit bland but, if he repeated it when he got up each morning, he might find it easier to review this desperate issue between general practitioners and the Government. The leaders of GP professional groups could not be considered, even in the wildest of imaginations, to be revolutionaries set in a political cause against a Conservative Government.
I doubt whether Dr. Sandy Macara has a poster of Che Guevara on his wall; or that Dr. Ian Bogle has a poster of Danny Cohn-Bendit—or that they did even in their


student days. Knowing those two gentlemen, I suspect that they were more likely to have been inspired by the likes of Winston Churchill and R. A. Butler, yet we find them challenging the Government because of their attitude towards the most basic part of the national health service—primary medical care.
For more than two years, the Government, led by the right hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), the Minister of State and their colleagues in the Department of Health, have managed to reduce morale among GPs to a new low, to the very brink of industrial action. I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues want to avoid that, as do the majority of GPs, but there is a real danger that, unless the Government change their attitude now, the dispute will escalate. If it escalates, it will be to the disadvantage of patients. If it is to the disadvantage of patients, let it be known that, although the Government might try to blame the doctors, the Government will be to blame, not the medical profession; for it is plain that it is within the Government's capability to end this dispute successfully, if reluctantly.
If the Minister of State goes contrary to form and displays a change of mind tonight, we will hail that change. One always hails a good premiere. What one is rather bored by is a tedious repetition of past poor form.
Let us consider the problem, for there is a problem, that faces GPs. I have to confess—if it is a confession—to being a GP's son. I remember when we lived in Burnley in Lancashire, in the old house that contained the surgery, that, occasionally, the telephone used to ring at night and my father would go out to make a call. He had a big practice, but night calls were a rare occurrence in those days. Times have changed and demands have increased. By the time my father retired, the number of night calls had increased significantly, and the partners who succeeded him in his practice have been subjected to a burgeoning demand for night services.
By 1989–90, some 936,148 night visits were made by GPs. By 1993–94—albeit the statistics cover a two-hour longer period than in the year I have just mentioned—some 1.832 million night visits were made by GPs. The latest estimate that we have been able to obtain from the British Medical Association is that, in the past year, 2.3 million night visits were made. These are visits demanded of doctors by patients. A doctor turns down a night visit at his peril—if he does not attend and something goes wrong, he is in trouble. Doctors—or at least the health service—have to be able to meet that demand. The number of night visits has increased more than six times in 25 years, and it has doubled since the introduction of the new GP contract.
I should say that I am delighted to see that the new Secretary of State has joined the debate for a short time. I congratulate him on his appointment. As I said earlier, he comes to the Department of Health for a second time, I believe, and therefore with some experience. I shall repeat the hope that he might decide to wind up the debate himself rather than leave the out-of-hours provision to his junior partner, the Minister of State. It would certainly be helpful—I repeat this in his presence—to hear that the Secretary of State has immediately reviewed this very worrying dispute, which must have been taking up significant space on his desk when he arrived in his new office.
I shall now return to the problems faced by doctors. An average of six night visits a month are made by doctors, and an average of 36 patient consultations per month are made out of hours. Many of those consultations, of course, are not night visits. There is much anecdotal evidence of greater weekend demand than many people think exists. It is clear that weekend demand has risen as quickly as night visits. Patient expectation, but not always patient responsibility, has risen. It is right in a debate such as this—I hope that hon. Members on both Front Benches share this view—to be quite robust about the attitude of patients and to ask them to be far more considerate than they sometimes are towards their GPs and out-of-hours provision.
In our consumerist society, legitimised by the patients charter, patients are expecting more at all hours from their doctors. For what should be an emergency service, the anecdotal evidence of misuse is striking. One doctor tells of a call for a home visit only to find when he got there that the family he was called to had gone out for a walk. Another tells of a man who complained that his hands had gone blue and that he feared a serious circulatory problem, only to be told, when the doctor arrived on the emergency call, that he had received some blue dye from the overalls that he had washed earlier that evening. One woman even woke a doctor in the middle of the night to ask him to deliver sleeping tablets because she could not sleep.
Doctors are at times victims of the inconsiderateness of their patients, but they also find themselves picking up the pieces of a society broken by Government policy. They constantly have to deal with misplaced, often seriously psychiatrically ill, community care patients. They are often the only people to whom chronic schizophrenic patients, who have been dumped in loneliness in society, can go. They often have to deal with the drug and violence problems of inner cities and are at physical risk when they go out on night calls. In rural areas, doctors have to provide almost all the emergency medical cover. Indeed, they are often called out to do what turns out to be emergency dentistry, which they are not able to complete.
The situation is fraught with problems for GPs. In May of last year, after many months of negotiation, the BMA and the Government agreed on changes to GPs' terms of service. It had taken months to clarify whether GPs could use their own judgment to decide whether a patient required a home visit, which seems an extraordinary issue for the Government to argue about for so long, and it took many more months to decide how to implement a very small amount of flexibility in how out-of-hours care was provided.
Now, negotiations on the payment scheme have run into the sand, but it is not principally an issue about money. Doctors are not simply holding out for more money. The real issue that concerns the BMA is the form of the out-of-hours system. Doctors want to move away from a scheme that positively encouraged—perversely encouraged—GPs to undertake out-of-hours provision themselves, whatever the effect on their work, rather than use other people to do it for them, because they were paid more for doing it themselves, which seems irrational.
An offer of £2,000, plus £9 for each visit, was rejected as, for many doctors, it would be a direct pay cut. It is extraordinary how the Government believed that they


could offer doctors a pay cut as an incentive to accept a new contract. The offer was increased to a lump sum of £2,000 and a £20 fee for each night visit. That offer was also rejected, not on money grounds, but as a crude approach to the far more complex problems of the structure of and demand for out-of-hours care.
The Minister groans audibly when I say that the dispute is not mainly about money, which shows that he has not begun to understand the issues that the British Medical Association is trying to put to him. I suggest that he or, preferably, the Secretary of State, should meet Dr. Bogle and Dr. Macara shortly—I believe that the Secretary of State might well be intending to do so—so that a new view can be taken of what the dispute is really about.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): It is not the British Medical Association that I have some difficulty understanding, but the hon. and learned Gentleman. In one voice he says that he is against what he says are the perverse incentives in the scheme. If I paraphrase him correctly, they are perverse incentives that mean that doctors are encouraged to do their own visits. What has happened is that, in the new fee structure, a different incentive reduces the perverse incentive that he criticised, yet he is criticising what we have proposed as well. Which does he prefer?

Mr. Carlile: I am afraid that I find that intervention totally incomprehensible. I suggest that the Secretary of State reads the submissions—if he will listen for a moment—presented to him by the BMA, start with a clean sheet and ignore the prejudices of his Minister of State, which have become the major obstruction to resolving the dispute. Sometimes it helps to take a new look. Perhaps the Secretary of State will do that.
Of course, money is part of the question. Indeed, Dr. Brian Hope of Salford suggested that not many Conservative Members would leave their lovers' beds for that sort of money unless it was to ask a parliamentary question. That was a rather unfair gloss on the real issue. It is not simply a pay dispute between a profession and its paymasters, but a dispute about realistic provision of high-quality patient care. The Minister can put his finger in the dyke, but the hole will grow unless the Government are prepared to study the structure of out-of-hours provision and produce a resolution for the future.
There is a way forward on six issues. The Government are right to support the development of GP co-operatives. They offer a good solution to out-of-hours care. Such co-operatives, however, cover only 17 per cent. of patients, and the National Association of GP Co-operatives would, I think, recognise that it will take a considerable time for them to be suitable for all types of area, particularly some inner-city practices and rural areas.
The whole profession, including the co-operatives, is united in the belief that the Government's £45 million offer has been made in a way that provides no equity between practices and areas of different types. My first suggestion to Ministers, therefore, is that they consider the way in which the £45 million has been offered and find out whether they can re-tailor it into a more equitable offer for general practices throughout the country.
In due course, I should like to hear from the Minister that the Government's door is open on the issue of distribution at least. It would be interesting to hear from him where that £45 million is to come from, however. Is it new money? That is a simple question and the Minister

can answer yes or no. Is it new money? Perhaps the Minister would like a couple of hours to think about that question before winding up—so that he can give the sort of obfuscatory answer to which we are accustomed to hearing from him.
It is my suspicion, and that of many connected with the medical profession, that the £45 million is about to be lopped off other health service budgets, which will suffer as a consequence. That cannot be tolerated. If it is to be lopped off other budgets, the Minister should tell us where it is being taken from. We look forward to hearing an answer to those questions at the end of the debate.
My second suggestion for Ministers is that payment for out-of-hours calls should be available to all doctors who are qualified to practise as general practitioners. The present system is ludicrous. Only general practice principals can receive the £20 fee for a consultation, which means that, if a principal arranges for an on-call service to do his out-of-hours calls, the £20 fee is not payable. That seems manifestly unjust and militates against the provision of efficient out-of-hours care that does not put too much pressure on doctors.
Despite the amusement with which the Minister evidently regards this debate, my third suggestion is that the Government should set about redefining the contract. It is unclear to GPs how much of their contract covers in-hours work and how much covers out-of-hours work other than night calls. There is separate provision for night calls, but doctors deserve, and are entitled, to be told what proportion of the payment that they receive is intended to cover working during the evening, on Saturdays after lunchtime and on Sundays, all of which are out of hours.
How much of the capitation fee and the other allowances notionally covers evenings, Saturday afternoons and Sundays? The importance of having that information separately is that there is absolutely no reason why doctors should not be given the flexibility to arrange their practices and their activities by taking into account the answer to that question. It would enable some of them to manage their practices differently. It would enable some to hive off all their out-of-hours work and it might lead to the burgeoning development and rapid acceleration of GP co-operatives to cover more than merely the night calls that they cover at the moment.
Just as doctors are told what part of their earnings comes from night calls, so they should be able to negotiate their working arrangements to take into account other out-of-hours provision. That would also enable doctors who are inclined and able to do sessions in hospital to broaden their experience and provide more specialist services, to do so in a more manageable way.
My fourth suggestion for the Minister is that technology could be improved. Obviously one cannot use distance technology to deal with night calls. Computer facilities are not yet in every home. Technology can help the management of practices, however, and many general practitioners' practices now have significantly improved computer systems. The use of telecommunications technology, and its being made available to doctors in a cost-effective way through the national health service and the family health services authorities and their successors, would mean that they could work more efficiently, especially in rural areas and heavily populated inner cities.
My fifth suggestion relates to rural areas. I represent a rural area in which the population is widely spread, the largest town has about 11,000 inhabitants and there are


many small settlements. In such areas, the provision of out-of-hours services is very different from that in a suburban environment. I invite Ministers to take the view that a special settlement is needed to ensure that facilities can be provided properly in rural areas.
My sixth suggestion concerns the efforts that have been made in patient education. They are commendable so far as they have gone, but they have footled around the edges of the matter. There is prime time advertising for all sorts of Government-sponsored campaigns. In my view, patient education should be such a campaign. The message is a simple one: caring doctors need caring patients. Getting that message across requires a fairly hard sell. We have yet to see that hard sell from the Government.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman suggests that there should be television advertising and a big campaign to support the Government's plans for GPs. He may or may not be right, but is not that rather at odds with what has been said by his colleagues in the Liberal party who have criticised every advertising campaign the Government have carried out, whether successful or not, and used bogus figures to say that money is being wasted? He cannot have it both ways. Perhaps he can; he is a Liberal.

Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman is factually wrong. The Liberal Democrats have always been happy to support campaigns that have not trailed the Government's party politics. Of course, we now know how the Government behave. We have a Cabinet of 24 in which two Ministers are there to serve not the country but the Conservative party. That is the political world in which we live.
We are prepared to give the Government the credit of our support if they are prepared to go in for non-partisan campaigns of patient education. The sort of campaign that has been run on drink-driving might well be effective in educating patients to be considerate towards their doctors.
I make a further suggestion to the Government. It would be worth looking, on a pilot project basis, at some different models for certain aspects of primary care provision. For example, provision of health care for the elderly chronically sick can make great demands both on GPs and on hospitals. Many hospitals have experience of, and excellent departments that specialise in, care for and diseases of the elderly. In some of the more populous areas, it might be worth considering modelling primary care so that it is provided using the hospital as a base rather than via GPs or in the hospital. I have received representations, not from the BMA but from individual doctors, suggesting that such an approach might help to take some of the strain from them.
The danger is that doctors will take the view that there is no point in co-operating with the Government and that the Government will have to solve the problem themselves. We could get a system in which some doctors just shut up shop at 5 pm and do not want the payment because it is not worth the effort. As a result, as in some continental countries, we might make patients reluctant to approach their doctors even when they need them. We have to try to find a balance. I believe that what the Government have offered falls far short of a balanced

system. Indeed, the demoralisation of the medical profession is surely evidence enough that the Government have failed to find that balance.
There is a shortage of new doctors. One in eight places on general practice training courses is vacant. The shortage of new doctors is especially evident in practices that do their own out-of-hours cover. The recent vote by the BMA surely demonstrated the extent of demoralisation. There was a turnout of 77 per cent. of doctors—which would do many constituencies credit in a general election—and 82.6 per cent. of those who voted said no to the Government's offer; only 17.4 per cent. said yes.
The Government's response has been extremely poor. Thus far, they seem to have chosen to challenge the GPs. It might have been better for the profession and for the public if the Minister of State, who seems to have made the running on this issue, had joined the right hon. Member for Surrey, South-West, now the Secretary of State for National Heritage, in that attack of fugue, in the psychiatric sense, that sent her off deluded to another job which has put her in charge of fugue in the musical sense. I am not sure how the Minister of State would have done as a Minister of Music, but at least we might have had other new Ministers at the Department of Health singing in harmony rather than in the discord with which the Government are approaching doctors.
If we are to avoid a disaster for out-of-hours provision, the Minister must become a fugitive from his usual intransigence. It is perhaps a vain hope, but nevertheless it is a hope, that we might at last, at the end of tonight's debate, hear something positive from the Government.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): I beg
to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
notes that the Government has continued to meet the recommendations of the independent pay review body for general practitioners' pay, which is for a 24 hour commitment to their patients; welcomes the Government's constructive approach to addressing the profession's concerns, which includes an extra £45 million to support general practitioners' out of hours services, makes it possible for general practitioners to transfer responsibility for providing out of hours cover to another doctor and restructures payments so that the average general practitioner will receive an extra £800 per year for night visits; supports the approach of the Patient's Charter, which stresses to patients that with rights come responsibilities; and believes there is absolutely no case for general practitioners to take industrial action which would inevitably harm patient care.
If that is the sort of the stuff that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) comes out with on behalf of his clients in court, I hope that he does not have the nerve to charge them anything for it. It was a mixture of relatively pompous and personal points, which I did not mind.
I think it is good that a Minister should sit on the Front Bench happy with his lot and that he should grin occasionally—with his supporters firmly behind him, backing the Government's cause—moving onwards to destroy the hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments. Of course I am happy with my lot; the hon. and learned Gentleman will have to put up with that. He will see that I smile from time to time as he makes the odd bon mot, with which I intend to deal in my remarks.
The hon. and learned Gentleman offered a poor agenda for change and failed to acknowledge the substantial way in which the Government have moved on the issue and


have listened to GPs and to the arguments advanced by the British Medical Association over a considerable period, not least since I joined the Department last July. In my own defence, I must say that it is entirely wrong to say that we have not listened; we have. We have responded a great deal and in detail to the concerns, many of which were set out by the hon. and learned Gentleman and some of which I will be able to respond to fairly positively this evening.
Perhaps it would be helpful to the House if I put firmly on record the Government's current offer. Our offer is designed to meet the concerns about work load and about pay for out-of-hours work. The two go together. I notice that the hon. and learned Gentleman fell into the trap of saying that, of course, it was not about money and then in the next breath that it was something to do with money. The truth of the matter is that it has to do with both. That is why the Government's offer has been constructed carefully to meet both the work load argument and the out-of-hours pay argument.
Let me go through the essentials of the offer currently on the table. An extra £45 million has been provided for GPs within the overall health budget. Its purpose is to support alternative out-of-hours arrangements and to give GPs more flexibility and choice in managing their work load. As I said, that money comes from the total national health service budget, which in England is more than £30 billion per annum. It is not from—and this must be the concern of GPs—funds that would otherwise have been devoted to general practice. As far as GPs are concerned, it is new money that was intended to be brought to bear on a specific problem. The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong to suggest that the Government have not been specific about that. We have been specific from the outset and I endorse what we have said on that point before.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked how the arrangements will work. The offer was put on the table not in a prescriptive sense but in the hope that we could reach an agreement in principle with GPs and talk through the detail.
The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned a number of schemes, including 24-hour primary care centres. Such schemes will be in our mind when spending the £45 million on the arrangements that we want to put in place to guarantee and underpin quality out-of-hours cover.
Since I was appointed, I have made a point of spending a great deal of time in general practices to see what the problems are and how out-of-hours care is provided. In particular, I have made a point of talking to GP co-operatives and to those who represent them in their national association. Anyone who takes an interest in such matters will understand that a number of basic arrangements are in place, such as GP co-ops. Some have been established in Kent, and I visited one in Reading. Interestingly, the one that I visited in Reading also dealt with rural areas.
It is important to dispel the myth that co-operative arrangements cannot by their very nature deal with the problems of rural areas; in certain circumstances, they can. The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned rural areas specifically. I recognise that they can have special difficulties, which is why we said that we would consider special arrangements whereby some of the £45 million can be devoted to locum arrangements for GPs in rural areas if it is not possible to form a co-operative. The

Government's mind is open on that point, and the Secretary of State's door is open not only on that point but on others too.
I take this opportunity to make it clear to the House and to the hon. and learned Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be meeting GP representatives about that very issue: the date is set for Thursday this week. Of course, he will be extremely keen to listen to all that they have to say, and it is right that he should do. As I have said before, I hope that the meeting will provide an opportunity to take matters further.
The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to a fundamental issue but did not examine it in detail. Where the Government part company from those who are arguing about this issue is the separation of the 24-hour contract. It is vital for the quality of primary patient care that someone must have custody of that care. The way in which the system developed in the health service—before the 1990 contract and after the 1990 contract, which reinforced it—is that the GP principal closest to the patient must have custody of that patient's care. Of course, that GP cannot be expected to provide care 24 hours a day, seven days a week and 365 days a year. That is why there are other arrangements for cover, such as sharing within a practice, joining a GP co-operative, using deputising services or making more permanent arrangements to transfer the responsibility from one GP to another.
I reiterate the Government's determination not to undermine that element of patient care but to examine reasonable mechanisms under which doctors' work loads can be shared as long as there are permanent quality arrangements in place. We have made it clear in the negotiations that we are happy to examine the regulations, and have offered to do so, so that doctors who want to move more permanently out of out-of-hours work will be able to do so.
The original offer for night visit payments was a flat rate of £2,000, which would enable a number of doctors to employ deputising services up to that amount. In addition, there was a £9 fee if the visit was to be undertaken by a GP principal. We have moved a long way on that issue, and the fee now being offered is £20—more than double the original offer. The average general practitioner will receive an extra £800 a year for night visits compared with the arrangements currently in place. It is therefore entirely wrong for the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that, even with that specific mechanism delivering a part of the payment due to them, doctors will be worse off under the Government's proposals.
I must set out the Government's record on pay in general. The hon. and learned Gentleman told the House that morale was at an all-time low. The implication of his remarks was that the Government have behaved badly towards the profession for a long time. Since 1979–80, pay for general practitioners has increased in real terms by 40 per cent. That is a record of which the Government can be proud. It underpins the importance that we attach to general practice, and I hope that it is a record that the medical profession recognises.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Minister say why increasing numbers of GPs are now retiring in their early fifties to avoid the burden that they believe is involved in working in the national health service?

Mr. Malone: If the hon. and learned Gentleman scratches the surface, he may discover that quite a few


retirals are followed by a return to a temporary practice or a move to another sector of health care. It is ludicrous for the hon. and learned Gentleman to suggest that, by paying doctors an average of 40 per cent. more, we are encouraging them to leave the profession. In overall terms, doctors have been extremely well treated by the Government and well served by the independent review body system. The implication of the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments is that the work load is too great. The work load has changed, and the very structure of the way in which GPs provide services is very different from what it was even a few years ago.
One hears the stories that go around, but I must set them in their proper context. I wish to put the facts firmly on the record. There is an average of 70 night visits a year per general practitioner. That means six a month. The work load survey is the best available overall evidence about work loads and it is far more reliable than the odd individual and sometimes unsupported anecdote that we sometimes hear. The British Medical Association participated in the survey that was submitted to the independent review body.
The 1992–93 survey revealed that doctors work an average of 31.9 normal hours a week, 6.9 out of hours—including two hours on night visits—and 19.2 hours on call. The problem is that the anecdotes on which much of the general debate on out-of-hours care is based are not supported by the work load study. The study also revealed that, between 1989–90 and 1992–93, working hours increased by 2 per cent. but remuneration increased by 8 per cent. in real terms. By any national indicator and across the system as a whole, which is what the independent national review body must consider, doctors have been well supported in cash terms. They have also been well supported in terms of their work load.
Listening to the hon. and learned Gentleman and other Opposition Members, one would think that the changes in the role of the general practitioner had occurred unsupported. Let us run through the figures relating to GP support. The number of all-staff support in general practice is up from 37,000 in 1989 to 51,000—a 38 per cent. increase. The number of nursing staff has risen from 4,600 to 9,099, a virtual doubling of their number. The number of non-nursing staff is up from 32,000 to 42,000, a 30 per cent. increase, and the direct cost of providing those increases in staff has risen from £242 million to £510 million. That is not an unsupported system, which is how the hon. and learned Gentleman chose to portray it.
It is clear that there have been changes and developments in what GPs do. More care is rightly provided in the primary sector. Indeed, it is the purpose of a primary care-led national health service, but the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion that all this has happened with GPs picking up the burden unsupported, either in terms of those who work within practices or in terms of the Government's cash commitment to ensure that they are properly paid, is quite wrong. It is an argument that I refute absolutely.
The Government have responded to the concerns that have been expressed over some time in a variety of meetings between the British Medical Association and me and between it and my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State. Part of the difficulty has been that, as we have made progress in a number of areas, the

goalposts have occasionally been shifted and new arguments put. That is what has happened now, and the hon. and learned Gentleman will be well aware of a call, on the record, to look at the total separation of the 24-hour contract into two parts.
Before that proposal is considered, we must consider its implications. It would mean, for example, that a patient would have to look to two GPs for their services through a 24-hour period. What would out of hours mean? Would it still be an option for a GP to do some out-of-hours service and merely to relinquish the responsibility for night calls? Would the split operate from 6 o'clock in the evening, or at 10 o'clock? To whom would the patient look?
That separation is a dangerous road to travel and would be against the history of the way in which primary care has developed since the NHS came into being. It would be bad for the quality of patient care and it would be a retrograde step. When the hon. and learned Gentleman starts to embark on that path, I wonder whether he has really considered all the implications.
I understand what GPs' leaders are telling us: family doctors are finding it increasingly difficult to balance the demands of their out-of-hours work and their home life. We do not underestimate that strength of feeling. We recognise that GPs work extremely hard, and we are determined to address those concerns not just for the benefit of GPs but to safeguard the quality of patient care.
The importance of underpinning that quality of care was brought home to me recently in an Adjournment debate. A difficulty had arisen in a case of out-of-hours cover. The important thing was that at least the patient knew to whom she could turn. It is important to continue to encourage the high patient satisfaction that is delivered through primary health care, which is one of its greatest assets. We must be extremely careful not to build into that system the potential for demarcation disputes and uncertainty about to whom the burden should be passed. They would cause great difficulties and would not do the profession any good in the long term.
I reiterate that, within the context of the present system, we wish to make progress and explore what has been said recently by the profession to see whether we can build further on our initiatives. The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned one extremely important initiative: how patients address and use their GP service. I must say to him that it was slightly fanciful—I do not know whether he thought it through—to suggest that we should launch a multi-million campaign, with me, as the Minister, on television instructing patients on how they should behave. It appears that that would be compelling and would result in patients changing their practice. My hon. Friends might be rather interested to see such a demonstration, but I am not sure that it is one that I would support.
If patient practice needs to be changed, the people to lead that must be medical practitioners, because it is important for them and their professional futures that they do nothing to undermine their relationship with their patients. In many cases that lead has already been taken. I recently visited a practice in Essex where a patient education campaign was vigorously under way. Details of how it operated were contained in the patient practice brochure, which had been issued to all patients. Out-of-hours calls had reduced significantly as a result.


The Government are prepared to help and build upon that sort of initiative, and I hope that we can move forward on the issue.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I am glad that a practice has been able to achieve something with a patient education campaign. Does not the Minister agree, however, that there is a serious problem with the view that some patients have of the NHS, exemplified by the 11 million-plus hospital appointments which were not kept in the last year for which statistics were available? Does he also agree that many GPs are not as skilful in managing their practices or patient relations as the example that he gave, particularly those hard-pressed, single-handed GPs who are attempting to function in some inner-city practices? Does not he think that the Government should bear the responsibility for patient education for the great mass of patients?

Mr. Malone: I have already said that we are prepared to help and support schemes, but I would wish to talk through with the profession how one could do that in detail. We are engaged in that process. The hon. and learned Gentleman should know that evidence exists of best practice and good practice around the country. I have told the medical profession that, if we can reach common ground on the out-of-hours issue, we can then proceed with patient education. The thought that such a programme could proceed against the background of the proposed industrial action of the medical profession is somewhat fanciful. That would undermine the process from the start. To embark on such a programme now would not represent a sensible use of public funds, nor would it achieve the result that everyone is seeking.
We have heard from the hon. and learned Gentleman many of the arguments that have surrounded the issue over time, but not much that illuminates the initiatives that he and his party would take and that would go much beyond what the Government are doing.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I offered six new ideas.

Mr. Malone: I listened to those six ideas, and quite a few of them happen to be precisely what the Government are already doing. The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned rural areas, and I have set out precisely what we are doing in that respect. He mentioned patient education, and I said that the Government are prepared to respond to that proposal. He mentioned a range of novel ideas about providing out-of-hours care. I have explained that we prepared to look at such care and innovate and have set aside £45 million for that purpose. Much to my regret, as long as the problem with out-of-hours work continues, that £45 million lies unused either for the benefit of GPs or their patients. It could be used to improve the services from which patients would benefit.
The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about increased use of technology. I do not know what he meant by remote technology in the home. I suppose that even the Liberal party has caught up with the introduction of the telephone around the country. In extremely good practices, especially in 24-hour primary care centres, a lot of consultation can be carried out by telephone to reduce the burden on GPs. I am on all fours with the hon. and learned Gentleman on that practice.
The only point on which I disagreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman related to the separation of the contract. Were he to follow a route towards a double structure of primary care, he would be wrong.
We have moved some distance in the past few months in response to what doctors have said to us about two key areas. First, we must not compromise the quality of patient care in reaching a new arrangement for out-of-hours work and, secondly, we must strive to reduce the worst of the work load burden, and I am happy to consider whatever arrangements could be introduced by GPs to assist.
Substantial progress on the new arrangements has been made, which must be recognised by the House, not just on its own merits but especially in the context of the way in which the Government have underpinned their commitment to general practice in words of encouragement and in deeds, cash and commitment over a lengthy period.
I hope that we can put the current problems behind us soon. I hope that, when my right hon. Friend meets the profession later this week he will be able to make further progress, because it is in the interests of patients that we resolve that matter quickly.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: This is the first parliamentary occasion that I have had to congratulate the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) on his appointment as Secretary of State for Health, and I congratulate him on my own behalf and on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), unreservedly. I welcome him to his appointment and congratulate him on his merited promotion.
I also take careful note of the fact that the Minister of State is still with us. He said that he was happy with his lot, and if he is happy with his lot we are all happy for him.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile)—rather churlishly, I thought—regretted the absence of the Secretary of State for the opening minute and a half of the debate. That was rather to overlook the much more welcome, and I hope permanent, absence of the previous Secretary of State.
The Liberal Democrats in their motion tell us, among other things, that we should aspire to a pattern of out of hours services
which is right for patients, fair on the taxpayer and manageable by family doctors
and appropriate for 21st century health care. Opposition Members would certainly aspire to that, and I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on phrasing their motion in that way.
The words were not original; I guess that that will not come as a surprise to the House. They were lifted from something that the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) said in 1993 when he was Minister for Health. So that is a part of the Liberal motion that can unite both sides of the House.
The case for debating the increased demand for out-of-hours service is well made. Demands have increased by five times in the past 25 years and doubled in the past three years. The hours worked by general practitioners during the out-of-hours period—as was at least implicitly conceded by the Minister of State—have increased. They have increased by 49 per cent. since 1985–86, the middle of the last decade.
GPs undertake twice as many night visits now as they did before the new contract was introduced. The number now is 2.3 million visits per year, and that compares with 1.1 million in 1989–90. Twenty-three per cent. of doctors spend 80 hours or more a week providing services to patients and being on call, and the cost of out-of-hours service to the national health service has quadrupled in recent years to £82 million a year. That follows the renegotiation of the general practitioner's contract in 1990.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer can hardly fairly complain about that quadrupling of the cost, because the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was the Secretary of State for Health who renegotiated the contract.
It is right for the House to pause and ask itself why demand for out-of-hours services from general practitioners is growing, and appears to be growing disproportionately. There are several possible reasons.
The research on that subject is quite thin, so, although the Minister of State rightly deplored relying on anecdotes, to some extent we have to, because his Department either has not done the research or is not sharing the research with the rest of the House. I suspect that the latter, rather than the former, is more likely.
There is a growing consumer culture—a culture that is encouraged by the patients charter, which has brought the language of consumerism into the health service. People are told of their entitlement or right to be seen by a GP at any hour of the day or night, and I notice that, in the Government's amendment to the Liberal Democrat motion, they refer to supporting
the approach of the Patient's Charter, which stresses to patients that with rights come responsibilities".
You would expect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the rights and responsibilities would be expressed even-handedly in the patients charter, so I thought I should check that that was so, because that was not the impression that I received on first reading the document. I decided to thumb through my copy, looking, not for the rights—the document is full of what it describes as "rights" and "expectations"—but for the word "responsibilities", to note where responsibilities were mentioned.
A paragraph on page 10, right at the bottom, says:
You can help the NHS by only calling out your GP at night if it cannot wait until the next day",
which is a perfectly fair thing to say. Later in the document, at page 24, there is another duty as opposed to entitlement, where the document says:
Warning—don't keep old medicines around the house. Please return them to your pharmacist for safe disposal.
The rest of the document is full of, "you can expect this, you can expect that; you are entitled to this, you are entitled to that". I read on, in search of the section that mentioned responsibilities, which the amendment to the motion suggests that I might find. It is not until one reaches page 28 that the word "responsibility" appears at all. It does say that if you must use the services,
you can help the NHS by using its services responsibly
and it suggests that patients
return equipment such as wheelchairs
and
crutches … when you no longer need them

and become a blood donor and always carry an organ donor card and so on.
Right at the bottom of page 28, the last page of the document, it says:
remember that you benefit if your GP has a good night's sleep, so please only call your doctor out at night if it cannot wait until the next day.
I believe that the Government are pushing it somewhat to describe the construction of the document as stressing
that with rights come responsibilities".
The patients charter does no such thing.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): I too have a copy of "The Patient's Charter and You", and I have been looking through it. In fact, the mentions of out-of-hours treatment are all on page 10, and there are two statements. One is:
when it is and is not appropriate to call on your GP for out-of-hours treatment
and the other is the line that the hon. Gentleman read:
You can help the NHS by only calling out your GP at night if it cannot wait until the next day.
That seems to me to be an especially balanced approach to out-of-hours visiting. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to play games with his computer or count through manually when responsibility is and is not mentioned, but it is not fair to say that that is a reflection of what the charter is all about.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman suggests that I exercised enormous skill and spent an enormous amount of time checking how many times the word "responsibility" is used in the patients charter. As the word occurs only once, it did not take me long.

Mr. Fabricant: You had to read it.

Mr. Brown: As the hon. Gentleman fairly says from a sedentary position, it put me to the obligation of reading the patients charter, but, as I am the shadow Minister of State and therefore required to take an interest in such things, that is perhaps no bad thing.
As I have diligently done my bit to prove my point, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of now going through the document and telling me how many times the word "expect" occurs. He will no doubt have completed his research before 10 o'clock, and can perhaps intervene on another speaker to tell me what he has discovered.

Mr. Matthew Banks: So this is what you use Short money for, is it?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman, as he intervened from a sedentary position, appears to suppose that I am using his hon. Friend as an unofficial deputising service. I am sure that he can serve in that capacity as long as he starts counting now.
It is obviously also the case that, in a society in which people are used to consuming services late at night—taxis, chemists, late night shopping, fast food delivery—it will occur to them to try to consume medical services late at night. Indeed, the universal availability of the telephone, which the Minister mentioned, has meant that people are now used to telephoning for things that they certainly were not used to telephoning for when the original terms and conditions of the general practitioner's contract were set, because people did not have telephones when the


service was first structured as it now is. There is an expectation that general practitioner services will be available at night, that they can be summoned up as of right and that an entitlement exists. The Government's patients charter has done much to underpin that way of viewing the service. I also believe, although it is difficult to find hard evidence to make the point precisely, that, to some extent, emergency services—there is a parallel with the ambulance service—are used as a substitute for the more conventional provision of primary care.
Having said all that, it would be wrong for the House to overlook the fact that much of the out-of-hours work performed by general practitioners is genuinely needed. It would also be wrong of us to overlook the fact that most of our fellow citizens consume the national health service in a responsible way. There can be no doubt—there is no quarrel over the issue between myself and the Minister—that pressure on the service has increased. I am certain that it has an effect on general practitioners' work load and morale.
There has been a drop in the number of people coming forward to train as GPs—a 15 per cent. drop since 1990. There has been a similar drop in the number of more senior doctors coming to general practice having been hospital doctors, having worked abroad or even having left the service temporarily for family reasons. There is also an increasing trend towards early retirement, as we discussed earlier. That is facilitated by the early retirement package for GPs, which allows general practitioners to quit at 50 with a lower pension. General practitioners still find that attractive and avail themselves of the package. The issue will not go away, and it clearly has to be addressed.
I am certain that the solution is not to be found in ending negotiations. I am equally certain that the solution will not be found in industrial action in the national health service, which I oppose. The issue is not primarily about money, although money is involved. It is a little rich for the Government amendment to refer to
payments so that the average general practitioner will receive an extra £800 per year".
The figure is arrived at through the complexities of the GP contract and the complexities of the way in which general practitioners are paid.
I believe—I stand to be corrected if I am wrong—that within the figure of £800 the Government include money that would be carried forward from last year's underspend. The money would be paid to general practitioners in any event and is not new money specifically to be paid to general practitioners for the out-of-hours service. If I have misunderstood that or have misrepresented the Government's position, I shall happily give way to the Minister. I think that I am broadly right in saying that the figure of £800 is as high as it could be and includes money that would fall to GPs anyway.

Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman will understand that the mechanisms in place do not always deliver the money to GPs. The point about the change in the fee structure mechanism now proposed is that it will deliver money. When compared with the present structure, GPs will be, on average, £800 better off.

Mr. Brown: I rather thought that I had got it right. If I ever get into terrible trouble and if the Minister of State is in private practice I shall almost certainly employ him to represent me in the courts—I certainly would not employ him as a doctor. The Government are clearly inflating their

£800 figure to get it as high as they can. It does not represent new money given to general practitioners that they would not otherwise receive. That is what the Government seem to be trying to imply, but it is not true.

Mr. Malone: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, because it is a fairly abstruse point.
It is of course the case that the global pool of money that the independent review body recommends is delivered in a number of different ways through different fee mechanisms. What the hon. Gentleman says is right: the money is part of that funding. But it is funding that may not have been drawn down, and will now be delivered. What the review body will recommend in succeeding years will depend upon what is paid this year. It is important to draw the money down at an earlier stage rather than leave it there untouched. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that it does not matter because the GPs would have got the money anyway is wrong. It is a figure that they will receive, on average, in addition to what they would otherwise have received this year.

Mr. Brown: If the Minister is now saying that there was some prospect that the element that stood to be carried over would not have been carried over, he should say that to the GPs rather than to me. He would be announcing a new concept. I do not think that it is for the Minister to withhold the money—the Minister shakes his head and confirms that the position is as I understand it.
If the solutions are not to be found in industrial action, which the Minister and I oppose, it logically follows that negotiations must continue. That is clearly the right way to proceed. The solutions will not be found in simplistic statements. I was slightly surprised to hear a leading Conservative intellectual, the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), say on the "Today" programme in early June, when stating the position on behalf of the Government:
If someone rings up a GP and says I've got a sore throat come and see me, you tell them to get lost, don't you.
Such simplistic solutions will not help, and I do not think that the solution lies in that approach.
There is merit in a public education campaign. Although the Minister clearly disqualified himself from playing a leading role in it, I do not think it would do any harm if the Minister went on television and explained what the out-of-hours service was for and what it was not for. Those are not points about which the major political parties are quarrelling, so why not spell out how the service should be used responsibly and, perhaps, give some examples of irresponsible or inappropriate use of the service? I do not believe that a public education programme will solve the problem, but it has a part to play.
The solutions lie in a co-operative way of working in general practice. The internal market exacerbates the problems. The Labour party's policies, with the emphasis on public service rather than the internal market, go a long way to resolving the problems. In our new policy document, we advocate closer co-operation between GP practices and local health authorities, both in the commissioning of hospital services and in the planning and development of primary care.
A successful solution to the problems faced by general practitioners providing out-of-hours service has been the formation of local GP out-of-hours co-operatives. One such example is the out-of-hours co-operative in the


Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority. Under that scheme, local GPs can sign up with the co-operative and divert all out-of-hours calls to the co-operative switchboard. In return, the GP agrees to participate in a duty rota for taking calls and making home visits organised by the co-operative.
As well as that excellent example of co-operation, the co-operative goes further and employs drivers to take the general practitioners to the patients' homes. That relieves the GP of the stress of navigating and driving alone to different parts of London. The scheme fosters a welcome team spirit among GPs on night duty and reduces the likelihood of GPs being attacked while making home visits—the more so as they have the driver with them. It is a more efficient way of dealing with out-of-hours calls and it significantly reduces the burden on individual GPs.
Another example—again, wholly in line with the health policies recently launched by the Labour party—is the one-stop shop such as the one in Norwich, which provides advice and information to local people. The scheme is intended to change the pattern of primary care delivery to meet the needs of today's population. Out-of-hours services are certainly among the range of services that the Labour party is keen to see improved in order to benefit patients and to relieve the pressure on GPs which, it seems, will remorselessly increase as they have to carry out their out-of-hours services.
Our proposals for co-operative working between GPs in the commissioning and planning process lend themselves to the possibility of locality groups of general practitioners setting up out-of-hours co-operatives and one-stop health shops. That is in complete contrast to the Government's approaches, which are underpinned by the national health service reforms. In many instances, fundholding has forced GPs into competitive relationships with their professional colleagues.
We want to replace competition in the health service with co-operation. We believe that all health care professionals will want to co-operate with each other, with the aim of delivering ever-higher standards of patient care. The competitive requirements of the internal market work against co-operation and hinder the development of innovation which brings with it efficiency in the health service and, dare I say it, greater benefits to the patients.

Mr. Bob Dunn: I had intended to welcome the Secretary of State to his new post and to wish him well within his new terms of reference. However, as he is not in the Chamber, I shall not do so.
When the Liberals hold their weekly meeting and examine the success of the two half-day debates, I think that they will conclude that they have been an utter waste of time. In the last debate, the Minister for Transport in London successfully duffed up the Liberal party on its proposals for the railways, and I think that we are about to see a repeat performance in this debate, as I have heard nothing so far to convince me that the Government have got it wrong with regard to out-of-hours patient care. In fact, my support for the Government is reinforced by what I have heard from the Liberal Benches today.
I am sorry that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), and his parliamentary minder the hon. Member for

Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) are the only Liberals present, as it would have been of benefit to all their colleagues to listen to the debate and understand why the basis on which they applied for it is wholly misguided.

Mr. Matthew Banks: If the parliamentary minder, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), had not been present, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) would not have realised that the words of the motion that we are debating this evening were those of our parliamentary colleague, the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney). That was clear from the exchange that took place when the matter was referred to earlier. [Interruption.]

Mr. Dunn: I will try to speak above the outbreak of frustration from the Liberal Benches. I am happy to respond to my hon. Friend's point. He is entirely correct: it is a very strange debate on a very strange day.
When I was much younger, I remember reading the history of the Liberal party—it is always wise to read about the history of one's opponents. The Liberal Democrats were once a great party. In our constituencies we probably have—as you do, Mr. Deputy Speaker—a Grenville street, a Gladstone road and a Rosebery gardens, but will we find an Ashdown street on the new housing developments in our constituencies?

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dunn: No, but I shall give way shortly. I want to finish this important point.
I suspect that we shall not see an Ashdown street, a Carlile road or a Beith gardens in the new housing developments in our communities. It is more likely that we shall find an Ashdown tip or an Ashdown recycling plant, because that would be appropriate to the once great party that is now reduced to a parliamentary sect.
The Liberal Democrats are no longer a party because, according to my definition, a political party has to be based on a philosophy; it must have principles. The one thing that the Liberal party has shown itself to be to date is a wholly unprincipled party without a philosophy. It is no longer motivated by philosophy, but by opportunism—as we can see at all levels of government, from parish to Parliament.
I wish to make an important announcement to the House, if I may, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier this week, we heard that a Mr. Steven Stenton, who was until the weekend a Liberal Democrat member of Kent county council, decided that his future no longer lay with the Liberal Democrats, and on Monday he applied to become a member of the Conservative party.

Mr. Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dunn: I am in full flow. I will give way in a moment. That now increases—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I am not sure whether the gentleman referred to is a patient or whether he attended out of hours. Either way, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will assist the Chair by returning to the motion.

Mr. Dunn: I mentioned the incident because the defection took place out of hours, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It took place at the weekend.

Mr. Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his "full flow" simply confirms what a dry summer it has


been? Does he accept that all political parties, including the Conservative party, have their loonies and that we are happy to see the odd loony go to the Conservative party rather than somewhere more sensible? Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he is prepared to vote today against the very deliberately chosen words of the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney)?

Mr. Dunn: I will certainly pass on the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments to Mr. Stenton. I am sure that Mr. Stenton's decision will be reinforced by what has been said today.
I shall vote for the Government amendment because the Government are doing exactly what I want them to do. I am here to support the Government and to advise, caution and warn them on those occasions when they get things wrong. So far, I have heard nothing from hon. Members on either side to cause me to change my mind. I came to the debate with an open mind; I wanted to listen and to learn from the debate. I am a genuine parliamentarian of the old school.
I welcome the Minister's announcement that talks will continue between the British Medical Association and the Government. That is right and proper. No one in the House wants to see general practitioners take industrial action. There was a perceived loss of professionalism on the part of teachers when they went on strike. I hope that the doctors have learnt from that incident and I am sure that they do not want to go down the same route. There has been a diminution of the perceived professionalism of the Royal College of Nursing since it decided recently to abandon its 80-year-old strike ban. Clearly, the Royal College of Nursing no longer deserves the description "royal"—and it is no longer a college, but a nursing trade union.

Mr. Carlile: Disgraceful.

Mr. Dunn: It may be disgraceful, but it also happens to be true—it is amazing how I can throw my voice and speak twice. The hon. Gentleman must enter the real world. If he spent more time in the House, he would understand the genuine concerns of our constituents. The Royal College of Nursing is no longer royal and it is no longer a college; it is simply a trade union. The BMA, to which hon Members opposite have referred, is probably the same thing.
Dr. Macara may not have posters on his wall of Daniel Cohn-Bendit—I am probably one of the few people present who remembers Danny the Red—or Che Guevara, another hero of the pot-smoking left, but Dr. Macara is no Conservative.

Mr. Carlile: He was.

Mr. Dunn: Well, he is not now.

Mr. Carlile: You have driven him away.

Mr. Dunn: Am I to be protected from such outbursts, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Dr. Macara is not a Conservative; he might have been a Conservative once for the wrong reasons, but he is not a Conservative now—and that is all that matters.
I have received only one letter about the subject of out-of-hours patient care, and that worries me. Some 80 per cent. of my constituents in Dartford are covered by fundholding general practices. It may well be that the

people I represent are satisfied with that arrangement and with the provision and dispatch of services to them and to their families. If there were a tremendous groundswell of concern, as reported by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, I suspect that I might have heard more about it from my local GPs, who often write to me about their concerns. However, they have no concerns about this issue.
I wonder, therefore, why the Liberal party chose to debate the subject today. I read the Liberal motion with great interest. The motion about out-of-hours patient care in the name of the leader of the Liberal party refers to the need for a method of work that is manageable by family doctors. The proposals by the Minister of State on 20 April confirm that that is also the Government's view. They want a manageable system and they hope that the public who use GPs' services will differentiate between genuine and non-genuine calls. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery mentioned some examples earlier.
Anyone who has been a parent knows the anxiety and stress that parents face when a small child is ill. Sometimes it a balance of judgment between being concerned and frightened about the health of one's child and ringing the doctor, or waiting until the next day, hoping that it will not matter too much. There will always be a balance between wasting the doctor's time and asking the doctor to come round because one is frightened out of one's wits because one's child is so ill.
The motion
believes there should be a right for general practitioners to transfer responsibility for out of hours care to another general practitioner".
That was also proposed in the offer on 20 April 1995, so what is the problem? The motion also
supports the need for substantial, ongoing patient education campaigns on the appropriate use of the out of hours emergency service".
No one in the Chamber has disagreed with that so far. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said as much a few moments ago, but that was also in the offer.
There is a need to make patients aware of the stress that they can put on doctors and, more importantly, doctors' families. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery gave an account of his own family, with a father who was a GP in my native Lancashire.
Inevitably, there will be occasions when the implications will not get through to those who waste time. We have heard nothing about what should be done about irritant patients who continue to waste time because there is something wrong with a little finger, the plasters have run out or they cannot get headache tablets. We must also be aware that the stress on GPs is huge and when they become tired because of out-of-hours work, their judgment may be affected. As society is increasingly litigious, it is necessary to protect doctors from what may be called the American syndrome, and that concerns every Member of Parliament.
I firmly believe that everything that the Government have done to date is right. I have no doubt that the Minister will listen to what has been said by hon. Members in all parts of the House before replying to the debate. I am sure that the BMA will also listen carefully to the words of hon. Members. One can wave the wand of disruption only once or twice before it becomes devalued and the BMA must be concerned about its long-term image in the community.
We all know that society makes many more demands on public servants, whether they be Members of Parliament, local councillors, therapists, social workers, doctors or anyone in the public eye. There must be a balance and GPs must be protected. That is why I am wholly in favour of the Government amendment.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): It is indeed an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) who is a parliamentarian of the old school, as he said and I am now happy to endorse. He said that he had received just one letter from a constituent. I, too, have received only one letter regarding this matter and that was from my own general practitioner. He is my personal general practitioner, Dr. Barry Jones, a fundholder at the Minster practice in Lichfield. Not only did we discuss the matter in his surgery, but we also discussed it in the Eastern Eye Indian restaurant in Lichfield, where from time to time I hold my surgeries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford spoke about plasters running out. My general practitioner was telling me that one patient phoned him up saying that his cotton wool had run out and he needed another prescription. He had cotton wool on prescription for a number of years following a prostate operation. When my doctor asked why he still needed cotton wool, the patient said that he required it because of the prostate operation. My doctor asked why he still needed it after four years. It transpired that he was using the cotton wool to stuff soft toys and he was doing it on the national health service. That gives some idea of people's expectations when dealing with the national health service.
I listened to the advocacy from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). He was certainly no advocate in respect of general practitioners. When he began his speech, seven Liberal Democrat Members were in the Chamber. He made some puns about fugues and one Member left halfway through. He then proceeded to contradict himself as to whether or not it was an issue of money and I noted that another Liberal Democrat Member had walked out. He then made a joke as to whether the Secretary of State was present. His supporters went down to three and at one point there was only one. I see that now there is only himself and the ever-present Liberal Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), sitting silently and noting the lack of support from his own side.

Mr. Dunn: The minder.

Mr. Fabricant: As my hon. Friend says, he is the minder, the silent and ominous one noting what has been said.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said that out-of-hours care should not be an issue of money. He went on to talk about the redistribution of wealth, but he made absolutely no practical suggestions, except for the one about advertising, to which I will return later. At that point there was absolutely no one else from the Liberal Democrat party in the Chamber.
He said that there should be remote control diagnosis and I wondered what he envisaged. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will intervene and tell me whether

there should be remote control diagnosis by means of the latest technology. Is he suggesting that the Government should provide everybody in the country with remote-control ECG and EEG machines or other paramedic technology that we should all have in our homes so that we could hook up should a diagnosis be required? That is an example of Liberal Democrat muddled thinking.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State rightly pointed out that some £45 million in additional funds will be made available for out-of-hours patient care. He spoke about 24-hour primary care centres and GP co-operatives. Incidentally, it was interesting that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said that the Labour party supported co-operatives and one-stop shops. In his typically amiable way, he advocated everything that already exists and has been introduced by the Conservative Government, but he chose not to mention what the Labour party would do to fundholders or trusts because there is no clear Labour policy on that.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: The hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically unfair. I said that I felt that the Government fundholding structures set neighbouring general practices against one another and that such a competitive way of working was not the best way to solve the out-of-hours problems. I said that our co-operative model was a better way to proceed, so I dealt with the points to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred.

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is reiterating the points that he made in his speech, but he did not say whether he would abolish fundholding overnight if Labour came to power.

Mr. Brown: Yes, it is our intention to phase out individual practice fundholding as currently structured over a period which may be as long as three years, but hopefully will be shorter and certainly in the first period of a Labour Government.

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is being untypically mealy-mouthed. He spoke about phasing out, he then said it would be abolished over three years and then he said that abolition would happen in any event, possibly within the five years of a Labour Government, should one come to power.

Mr. Malone: I would not like my hon. Friend to be under any misapprehension that Labour would do other than offer a fatal threat to GP fundholding. It is not mealy-mouthed—Labour is planning to abolish fundholding and to do away with all the benefits that it brings patients.

Mr. Fabricant: If that is the case—although one would not think so listening to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, who presents a confused picture about the amount of time that phasing would last—there would be a problem. Every general practitioner in Lichfield is a fundholder, including many who told me that they always vote Labour. Hearing the hon. Gentleman, I wonder whether they would ever vote Labour again.

Mr. Brown: I must correct the hon. Gentleman. I did not say that fundholding would probably go but that it would go. The Minister and I disagree on whether or not that policy is right but there is no disagreement between us, for once, as to Labour party policy. GP fundholding will go.

Mr. Fabricant: That is sad news. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has any policy on trusts. He shrugs.


It appears that members of Labour's Front Bench are now conferring and making policy on the hoof. I await a further intervention, to learn what would happen to trusts. There seems to be some confusion. In fact, there seems to be an argument between Labour Front-Bench members.

Ms Estelle Morris: indicated dissent.

Mr. Fabricant: Nevertheless, we await Labour's suggestions with interest.
The offer is clear—an extra £45 million within the overall health budget to support alternative out-of-hours arrangements. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, that extra funding would not otherwise be available to general practitioners. There would also be additional help for rural doctors within that £45 million.
Mention has been made of studies of GPs' work load, and it is worth reiterating the hours that they work. I take my hon. Friend the Minister slightly to task, in the sense that there is no such thing as an average practitioner. Nevertheless, the average GP works a normal 31.9 hours per week and 6.9 hours per out-of-hours, making a total of 38.8 hours—plus 19.2 hours on call.
There is a requirement for a re-education programme. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East talked about the patients charter, which is an excellent publication. The hon. Gentleman, or perhaps one of his assistants, has spent the last few days counting the number times that "expect" and "right" appear in the charter. That is rather amusing, because one can well imagine that if the charter included no expectations or rights, the hon. Gentleman would be the first to complain. The existence of the patients charter provides patients with a clear guide to what is expected of them and of practices, which cannot be a bad thing.
Difficulties have, however, arisen—primarily because of patients' expectations. It is not just the relationship between patients and doctors that demands re-education. I well recall my first surgery after I entered Parliament. One gentleman talked to me for five or six minutes, leaving me wondering what point he was trying to make. It eventually transpired that he was concerned that his wife was, to use his words, playing around. I wondered whether he expected me to raise that matter in a parliamentary question. Clearly, he had come to see me simply to express his worries and to talk them over with someone. That sort of thing is becoming increasingly common in the relationship that the public have with Members of Parliament and general practitioners. Perhaps the accessibility of politicians and of general practitioners on television creates an image that is not always helpful.
My discussions with my own GP included one this afternoon, after I decided to take part in this debate. He told me about some of the problems that have confronted him out of hours. This evidence may be anecdotal and, as I said, there is no such thing as the average GP.
A few weeks ago, Dr. Barry Jones was telephoned at 3 in the morning by someone who had toothache, wanting to know whether it would be all right to take aspirin or paracetamol. On another occasion, he was telephoned at I in the morning by a very drunk lady who asked whether he could provide a morning-after pill because she had committed an indiscretion some hours earlier—whether drunk or sober, we do not know. In another incident, Dr.

Jones was telephoned at 3 in the morning by the parents of a child with a runny nose, who were concerned that their child might have meningitis.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: The hon. Gentleman has described some of the frivolous reasons for which GPs are telephoned in the middle of the night, but how will the Government's proposal to throw money at the problem reduce the number of such calls? Should not the Government consider instead ways of reducing pressures on general practitioners, possibly by involving people other than GPs in the provision of out-of-hours medical services?

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is not necessarily right in suggesting that people other than GPs should be brought in. That would not solve the problem. I am flabbergasted—and I am rarely flabbergasted in the Chamber—to hear a Labour Member say that the Government are throwing money at the health service. If throw money at the health service we must, then we must—because the Government have a commitment to the NHS. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding the House of that commitment. He asked whether something else could be done. Earlier, I mentioned re-education, and I will develop that point shortly.
I will cite a few more examples of calls to my doctor because they are not just frivolous problems; they are educational, too. If anyone is listening to this debate, such examples might even strike a chord and hold them back from telephoning their doctor unnecessarily.
Another patient who telephoned my doctor was suffering from diarrhoea and vomiting—apparently such calls occur frequently—following a two-week holiday. The illness had lasted for a whole week; yet nothing was done about it while on holiday. Instead, the patient rang at 2 am for the doctor's advice. That is not only frivolous but an especially selfish use of the national health service. On another occasion, my GP was telephoned at 4 am and asked whether he could produce a sick note to say that an individual, who had been arrested earlier that evening for breach of the peace, was not fit to attend court. The list of such calls goes on and on.
My general practitioner—who is clearly not average judging from the figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Minister—says that in the past five years his out-of-hours work has quadrupled and he reckons that at weekends the work out of hours has increased some tenfold.
I do not think that there is an easy answer to the problem. If there are answers, they will vary depending on whether they apply to rural, urban or inner-city practices. Of course primary care centres can help and the Government are already supporting them. The situation is particularly difficult in rural areas, but again my hon. Friend the Minister is throwing money—to quote the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley)—at the problem. Throwing money at it might be appropriate occasionally.
My doctor reckons that he generally works a 47.5 hour week and, on average, he is on call for nine hours each working week—not including disturbed sleep. As he said rather wryly, since Members of Parliament work long hours but have begun to introduce Jopling reforms, perhaps there needs to be a similar reform of the hours of GPs. Without weakening the services and, indeed, the Hippocratic oath taken by general practitioners, implementing such reforms would not be easy.
There is no question but that the patients charter benefits patients. However, it has also increased patients' expectations and we should address that problem. I mentioned the pastoral role of Members of Parliament when I described someone coming to my surgery to talk about his wife playing around. Too many GPs are also expected to play such a role. One wonders whether the church could play a greater pastoral role rather than its being expected of GPs.
There is a clear role for re-educating patients in what they should expect of GPs—and what should be expected of Members of Parliament. In Staffordshire, we have a very good commercial radio station called Signal Radio. The local family health services authority put out a commercial which, to me, stated the obvious. Clearly, however, it needed to be done. It explained that every time someone does not turn up for an appointment at a hospital, it costs the NHS money and it could mean a longer waiting list for an appointment next time. I would have thought that people would realise that if they could not attend an appointment they should telephone beforehand to allow others to fill the slot. It is a sad indictment that a commercial needs to be put out asking people to think of someone else and to "love thy neighbour as thyself".
The Government have introduced the excellent "Help Us To Help You" campaign, yet it could go a little further and need not involve great expense. Television advertising is expensive and I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister that the money could be better spent. However, I think that a radio campaign, which is on average about a tenth of the price of a television campaign, could be very effective, especially compared with other forms of advertising and promotion.
My hon. Friend the Minister is absolutely right when he says that GPs have a role to play too. I quoted from the patients charter, as did the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East. The line on page 10 referring to
when it is and is not appropriate to call on your GP for out-of-hours treatment
should be included in the practice's own charter. So far, well over 50 per cent. of GPs and their practices have produced such charters, but the roles of both doctor and patient in out-of-hours treatment need to be more clearly stated in them.
We must provide better patient care. One of the great aspects of medical provision in Lichfield, and in mid-Staffordshire in general, is the ability of fundholders such as Dr. Barry Jones to send their patients to hospitals: the money follows the patient rather than the patient following the money. That is one of the most important changes that we have made over the past few years.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East laughs, because he thinks that I am merely quoting a slogan. For the first time, however, the Victoria hospital in Lichfield has a dermatology centre, a new paediatric centre, physiotherapy, an ophthalmic centre and a new surgical wing. That is all due to money following the patient: fundholders such as Dr. Barry Jones can direct their patients to the Lichfield hospital and consultants from Wolverhampton, Birmingham and Sutton Coldfield must now come to Lichfield. Previously, patients from Lichfield had to go to those cities.
What would the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East do? He said that perhaps in a year—or three years, or five years; he was not sure of the time involved—Labour would phase out fundholders. My only criticism of fundholding is that we have not introduced it universally; although it is universal in Lichfield, and virtually no GP in mid-Staffordshire is not a fundholder, unfortunately not every GP has become a fundholder nationally. It is through fundholding, however, that GPs are empowered to provide funds for patients as and when they are needed.
The NHS is safe in Conservative hands. It would clearly be in a very rocky state if it were in the hands of the Labour party—I would mention the Liberals, but as they are an irrelevance it hardly seems worth while. There should be more fundholders. GPs are a family practice, and they too will be safe in our hands. I have no doubt that, with a Minister of State like ours—caring, sharing, listening and co-operative; GP co-operatives were introduced by a Conservative Government, not by the Liberals and certainly not by the Labour party, which advocates them—the NHS will survive and continue to go from strength to strength.

Mr. Roger Sims: Some GPs complain that they work long hours, that they are on call at all hours and that their social life is often in danger of being disrupted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) said, they will find no more sympathetic audience than those of us who are present now. Being a doctor is rather like being a Member of Parliament: it is not simply a job, but a way of life, subject to the vicissitudes that I have just described.
Whether some of us are at our best after a late-night sitting is an open question. Some of us occasionally are, but I suspect that some are not. Certainly, if I were unwell, I would not wish to be attended by a GP who had had only two or three hours of interrupted sleep. Accident, illness and disease are no respecters of the clock. Patients expect and need the 24-hour availability of GP services, and the Government should ensure that such services are available. The question is, of course, how that can be done.
The British Medical Association has stated that the issues are not about pay but about restructuring. The structure suggested by the Government, of a lump sum for each GP, payment for calls and substantial development funds for out-of-hours arrangements, seems to be entirely reasonable. My hon. Friend the Minister has deployed the Government's case, while the BMA has deployed its case. The differences are not great, and it should be possible for men and women of good will to sit around a table and agree.
The BMA states that it believes that,
With willingness on the Government side,
the differences between them could be settled. That may well be right, but only if there is also willingness on the BMA side. I am bound to say that threats of industrial action such as the BMA is making do not help the atmosphere for such discussions, and the BMA does itself and a respected profession no credit by waving that particular stick.
The BMA has listed various requirements which would need to be met for the differences to be resolved. Having listened to my hon. Friend the Minister earlier in the


debate, I think that very nearly all the requirements are being met, although one or two seem a little unreasonable. The BMA says:
The Government's recent offer tied up the so-called right to transfer responsibility in so much red tape—by requiring FHSA approval—as to render the proposal impractical. It should be sufficient for GPs to make proper arrangements for the transfer and simply inform the FHSA.
The FHSA is responsible locally for ensuring proper provision of GP services. It would not be good enough for GPs just to make arrangements that they thought were in order and then tell the FHSA. It is entirely proper that the Minister should require the FHSA to approve any arrangements for the responsibility of the right to transfer.
The BMA also pleads that the Government should commit themselves to a public education campaign, a point that was made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and reiterated strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant). I must say that it is a plea with which I have considerable sympathy.
I am very much in favour of the patients charter, but I can also understand why some doctors have asked "What about a doctors charter?" The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) referred to specific incidents in which doctors had been called upon unreasonably, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire has just quoted similar examples. That is a real dilemma, and every GP could cite similar cases, because I am afraid that some people make unreasonable demands on their doctors.
Such treatment is not confined to doctors. As a member of the Health Select Committee, I was involved in the inquiry and report on the London ambulance service. One feature that emerged from the evidence before us was the fact that people will telephone for an ambulance for the most trivial complaints. That means that an ambulance is often out on the street dealing with such calls when a genuine emergency call comes through.
Doctors are faced with similar calls. It is one thing to take a telephone call in which somebody asks about something rather trivial that can be dealt with by telephone, but it is a good deal worse if a doctor receives a somewhat garbled message, a few comments and a plea for him to go out and answer the call, only to find when he gets there that the problem is something that could easily have waited until the morning—if, indeed, his services were required at all.
Like the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, I am a member of the General Medical Council, so I see what sometimes happens if doctors do not respond to calls which prove to be genuine. The consequences of a failure to respond can be serious, so one understands the dilemma of doctors who find themselves obliged to respond to almost every call, just in case. There is a real case for some sort of public education campaign to help people to realise in what circumstances it is right and proper to send for a doctor, but also to know what other steps they could take when the case is not so urgent.
As I have said, the differences between the Government and the BMA are capable of resolution around the table—but surely not across the Floor of the Chamber. The Liberal Democrats have not put their valuable parliamentary time to the best use tonight.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: It is a bit much if the Liberal Democrat spokesman who opened the debate, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), cannot be bothered to stay for three hours to listen to his own debate—but I guess that the Liberal party never had much staying power.
I could describe the reaction in the Chamber to his speech as "general satisfaction" with what he said. That may surprise some hon. Members, but I say it because he had so much self-satisfaction that that made enough satisfaction to go round for everybody. We were treated to the stuff that he no doubt dishes out by the yard in the courts, and for which he is well paid. Frankly, it did not cut much ice here.
Once again, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery showed us that there is nothing that the Liberals think too important to play party politics with. His was a trivial approach to the issue, trying to pretend that the complex issues did not exist or that we could wish them away. That was in stark contrast to the serious speeches from the Minister and from the Labour Front-Bench spokesman. Naturally, I agreed much more with the Minister than with the Labour spokesman, but they both made serious speeches about a serious subject that should not be trivialised.
I noticed several other features of the speech by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, the first of which was his patent dishonesty about money. The cry went up, "Is it new money?" Lots of new money has gone into the health service, we all know that. But of course it sounds good to ask the question, and that is all the Liberals care about. It sounds good to ask, "Is this new money?" and then to say that it is not, because it is not new since the beginning of the year. "Will it be taken from other services?" It sounds good, makes people attracted to what the Liberals say, but does not add up to anything substantial.
Once again, when the Liberals say that they want more money to be spent on something, they will tell us, "Well, this was in our proposals at the last election. We were the only people honest enough to say that there should be an increase in income tax." They did say that there should be an increase in income tax—of one penny. But they seemed to have forgotten how much one penny in income tax raises. It is less than £2 billion. When one adds up the sort of things that they say would be paid for from that one penny of income tax, one will see that it comes to about £8 billion or £9 billion. It is a patently dishonest approach.
The Liberals have the absolute cheek to say that there should be a large-scale advertising campaign about the responsibility that patients have in using GPs. Of course more responsibility should be shown. I shall come to that in a minute. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) pointed out some of the examples of abuse of the system. It was my experience last summer of having to answer attacks from the Liberals about the advertising campaigns that the Government are carrying out. The Liberals tell us, "It is only the Government trying to use them to their own advantage."
One area that the Liberals attacked was the newspaper campaign for people to carry the form—I believe it is the E1011—that one takes to European Community countries to claim medical services. The Liberal spokesman at the time told us that it was a complete waste of money, because


of the number of clippings that were sent back from the newspapers. That was a deliberate misrepresentation of what that campaign was about. I have taken my family abroad, and it was seeing the Government's advertising campaign that made me think that I must go and get the form and ensure that I had it with me.
The Liberals have the cheek to suggest that they want more advertising, because they could then attack us in next year's fanciful parade. I shall make one prediction: this year, another Minister will have to answer more attacks from the Liberals on Government advertising. They did last year and the year before. Liberals are creatures of habit. Doubtless they will try it again.

Mr. Fabricant: Ironically, is it not the case that the Liberals enjoy an almost enviable position? They can make commitments to spending. They can attack Government policy one moment and then advocate it the next, simply because they know—not even deep in their heart of hearts, but quite openly—that there is no chance of them ever becoming a party of government, so they can take that irresponsible stance.

Mr. Hughes: Indeed. I shall come to some of the inadequacies of the Liberals in government—as we see in local authorities—in a minute.
Those of us who use the NHS, who are customers of the NHS, know how important this part of the health service is. I ask doctors to reflect on what they are threatening. They are not low-paid workers. They are paid 50 per cent. more than Members of Parliament. I am not complaining in any way about what GPs are paid—of course it is right that they are paid well—but they have to clarify in their own minds whether they are talking about money.
There have even been suggestions that the BMA has taken the stance it has because of the BMA elections that are going on at the moment. I hope that that is not true. We are dealing with people's lives. We are talking about people who use the out-of-hours service because they are frightened. Anyone who has had a child screaming and being sick in the middle of the night—as a parent, one is worried about what will happen, and one cannot take the child to a casualty department, and that is not the right use of a casualty department, anyway—knows how important that service is.
I cannot believe that the very good GPs it has been my experience to come across—our own family GP, GPs in my constituency, and those mentioned by my hon. Friends—those responsible and caring people, would have any truck with industrial action that would inevitably hurt patients. However it was dressed up and however people pretended that it was merely an administrative matter, it would hurt patients, and they have to understand that.
I must comment on a couple of the things that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said on the subject. He made two statements that I would regard as a threat. First, he suggested that we should charge for out-of-hours service calls that turn out to be hoaxes. I do not understand how that is supposed to work, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire pointed out, Liberal Democrat suggestions are not supposed to work, but merely to sound good.
How would one collect the money? What is it supposed to mean? He is suggesting that the Liberal Democrats are not in favour of a service that is free at the point of use.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Nonsense.

Mr. Hughes: It is all very well for the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has just wandered back into the Chamber, to say that that is nonsense, but I am reading what he said. He has suggested a charge, and it is no good him sitting there with a puzzled frown on his face. He must face up to what he has said. He suggested that there should be a charge, and perhaps he will now tell us what he meant by that.

Mr. Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that 11 million appointments are broken in national health service hospitals is a problem? Does he agree that, to ensure a national health service that is free at the point of delivery to the patients who use it properly, we must consider ways in which we can ensure that patients attend meetings? It may not be feasible to charge patients 50p for a broken appointment, but if that is not feasible, would he like to suggest how he would ensure that patients do not miss 11 million hospital appointments? Has he anything constructive to say?

Mr. Hughes: I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman now has the figure right, because he mentioned 5.5 million appointments in The Independent of 6 July. At least he has got it right this time.

Mr. Carlile: Now answer the question.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. and learned Gentleman made a point, and suggested that there should be a charge, but in his intervention he recognised that that was nonsense. I expect him to speak nonsense—he has been doing it all evening.

Mr. Carlile: What is your answer?

Mr. Hughes: This is a serious problem, but hectoring from a sedentary position does not provide an answer. I accept that I do not have an answer, but I do not make the sort of stupid suggestions that we hear from the hon. and learned Gentleman.
I will continue with the cutting from which I was quoting. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery also suggested that he would take away the right of elderly people to have their GP as their first point of call. Again he is looking pained, but that is what he said, and it is more proof that the Liberal Democrats simply do not have a proper policy. They say one thing, but when one questions them, they say, "Oh, no. Goodness me. That's not what I meant. Are you talking about that policy document? We are talking about now."
He said:
Perhaps also, the elderly could be treated primarily in hospitals and not by GPs.
He would be prepared to deny the elderly the right to use their GP in the first instance. If that is not what he meant, he should apologise to the House.

Mr. Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is going to apologise, I will. If it is going to be the same


rubbish that we heard earlier, I will not. But I do not think that I will take time from his hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood).
I have one final point about fundholding GPs and the ability of those GPs in particular to run new services. I want to praise the Elliott Hall medical centre in my constituency, and in particular its patients' association. This is a wonderful GP service, providing a range of new services, which have not been thought of by others—so much so that people want to leave other GPs to join their books.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East was wrong to say that he wants to take away that ability to experiment, run new services, compete and enable others to do see they are doing. To do so would take away many of the improvements in the health service, and that is not a move that my constituents would welcome.

Mr. Matthew Banks: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye briefly in this debate, which has, at times, bordered on the bizarre. However, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) made an excellent and powerful speech. So did my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), who has momentarily had to leave the Chamber. I particularly enjoyed the remarks of that great parliamentarian, my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), who I know will be returning in a few moments.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) referred, rather more flexibly than the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), if I may say so, to the possibility of GP fundholding ending under any future Labour Government. I detected something of a discrepancy between what he said and what his right hon. Friend said, when she made it clear not long ago that GP fundholding as it currently stands is unacceptable, to use her word, and that she would put a stop to it in the first year of a Labour Government. [Interruption.] I notice that the hon. Gentleman seems to be saying something else. In my characteristic fashion, I give way to him.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Minister and I uncharacteristically agreed that I was not saying something else. For once there is no disagreement between my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and the Minister of State.

Mr. Banks: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. No doubt we will be able to compare what the hon. Gentleman said with what his right hon. Friend said on 29 June on the BBC's "Newsnight" programme, because there is a discrepancy. No doubt we will return to it on a future occasion.
Of course, this is a Liberal Democrat debate and I should point out to some of my hon. Friends that they are Liberal Democrats, not Liberals. There is a Liberal party in this country, which did not throw in its lot with the Social Democratic party. Its national headquarters is in Southport, and long may it remain so. They are a splendid lot. They did not renege on everything they believe and

on their principles to join the SDP in a sort of mark 2 Labour party. At least with the Labour party, we know where we are—

Mr. Brown: A minute before, the hon. Gentleman said the opposite.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman suggests that we do not know where we are with the Labour party. I was drawing a fast veil over the hon. Gentleman's discrepancy with the right hon. Member for Derby, South.
Due to the shortage of time, I would like to make only a couple of quick points in relation to this Liberal Democrat-inspired—if that is the right word—debate. I am aware that Liberal Democrats say one thing at one end of a constituency and another thing at the other end. On the one hand, they propose retention of a modified GP fundholding scheme—having, of course, changed their minds twice—and on the other hand they support a system in which GPs could choose to manage funds themselves, or as part of a locally-based consortium, or could ask the local authority to manage funds on their behalf. That would create the sort of politicised system within a local authority which the British Medical Association totally opposes.
I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) appreciates that but we should bear in mind that he did not seem to know that some of the words of his party's motion were the words of my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio. It is clear that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) had to tell him that. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has had little support from his side in this debate.

Mr. Paul Tyler: The hon. Gentleman has not had any.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Tyler) helpfully makes a sedentary intervention. Nowhere among the Opposition is there a better example of someone who says one thing at one end of his constituency and another thing at the other—one thing to one person and another thing to another. He has been absent for most of the debate, but the least said about that the better.
This has been a poor debate. My colleagues have drawn attention time and time again—and had longer than I in which to do so—to the shortcomings of the policies advocated by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. The debate has been a waste of good parliamentary time. It is a great pity that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not supported by a few more of his colleagues, but I have no hesitation in supporting the Government amendment.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful for the opportunity to reply to the debate, which I want to bring back to reality. In the time available, I want to make a number of points to which it is important that the Minister has the opportunity to reply.
I want to refocus the House's attention on the words of the motion that occasioned this debate. The motion states that the House "shares general practitioners' concerns" and refers to the need to


facilitate improved methods of work so that general practitioners can provide a more flexible, clinically appropriate and more modern way of providing emergency care".
Those words were carefully chosen, and we knew exactly where they came from—they are the words of the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), but I suggest that they are none the worse for that.
The motion goes on to talk about
a right for general practitioners to transfer responsibility for out of hours care".
I carefully took note of the fact that the Minister gave some support to that notion. The motion then talks about the need for "ongoing patient education campaigns" and ends with an exhortation to the Government to
take all reasonable steps to avoid industrial action by general practitioners.
It is a very measured motion. If Conservatives vote against it, they will be voting against not only the sentiments expressed some years ago by the right hon. Member for Peterborough when he was responsible for health matters in a previous incarnation, but almost everything else that every Tory Member who has contributed to this evening's debate said about the need for education and for changes such as the transfer of responsibility for out-of-hours care. Far from being wild or irresponsible, the motion is very measured.
We are in a serious position. It is very unusual for the Government of the day, after two years of negotiation, to be confronted with potential industrial action by doctors. In fact, it is quite unprecedented—a point ably made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). Something is seriously wrong.
It is no use Conservative Members saying that the British Medical Association is out of control or that it comprises a bunch of radical or irresponsible people; it is the BMA's members who are driving forward its policy on this issue. They are frustrated and dismayed, and wholly out of sympathy with the way in which the Government have handled the matter. That is certainly the message they have put to me loud and clear.
I shall refer to some of the contributions to today's debate and then—I hereby give notice to the Minister—deal specifically with rural problems. It will come as no surprise to the House to learn that my colleagues and I were very mindful of the particular problems confronting rural areas when we chose this important subject for debate.
Will the Minister answer the question asked by my hon. and learned Friend about the £45 million? Can it be better targeted? Where has it come from, and what services in the NHS will suffer as a result of its being redeployed? Will the Minister also deal specifically with the matter that arises in relation to one of the six constructive points made by my hon. and learned Friend about the transfer of responsibility and education? Those issues in particular are important ones, where there is a real prospect of progress.
The Government claim to have listened, and that was the main thrust of the Minister's argument, but he offered no succour to practitioners in rural areas. He talked about the £45 million provision. I understand that capital investment is needed for certain new services and facilities when developing co-operative or depute doctor services.
The Minister went on to argue, however, that some of the £45 million could be deployed in the payment of locum services. If one spread the £45 million throughout the GP population, it would be equivalent to £1,500 a head. It costs £175 a head for one night's locum cover in my constituency, so that £1,500 would provide 10 nights' locum cover in a year. If the Minister has founded his argument on that possibility, he has forgotten that there have been many losers under the new flat rate scheme, which provides £2,000 plus a £20 payment.
GPs in my area are currently paid £48.45 per night visit, but of course they have other out-of-hours responsibilities as well. People generally do not understand that there is a difference between night visits and the other burdensome responsibilities that GPs must face during the rest of the early evening and at weekends from, Saturday morning through to Monday.
Throughout the debate, I have had the sense that the Government do not understand the strength of feeling among individual doctors and their organisations about the problems from which they are suffering. The BMA has suggested to me that the average GP's working week is 62 hours, despite talk in the debate about a week of 47.5 hours. The BMA has also calculated that 23 per cent. of GPs spend 80 hours or more a week on call and providing services to patients, while just 8 per cent. work less than 40 hours a week—many of whom are part-time doctors.
Doctors face many problems, not just because of out-of-hours work but as a result of the 1990 contract. They have seen their independent contractor status eroded. They have had to bear the extra duties placed upon them because of screening and health care checks, as well the additional bureaucracy that the Government have loaded on their backs, which they greatly resent. Evidence suggests that those changes have led to much disillusion, to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery adverted.
On education, I noted that the Minister said that he did not think that there was much between us. That may be true. Leaving aside the rather trite remarks of the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) about our previous attacks on the Government, I want to make it clear that we would support a nationally sponsored organised education campaign. It would not need to cost an absolute fortune, but it could provide a framework within which local practitioners could conduct their own campaigns.
That campaign could get across to folk that it is in no one's interest to have a tired GP, who has had no sleep the night before, attending to people's needs and diagnosing their illnesses. The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) made a good speech about that. I am sure that the House could agree on that. Were we to get some assistance at the right level from the Government towards such an education campaign, it would send an important signal to doctors and suggest to them that the Government were taking their concerns seriously.

Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kirkwood: I am sorry, but I do not have time.
It is important to underscore the pressure that doctors feel they are under. An article in The Independent last month reported that an independent survey carried out by


Alcohol Concern between 1979 and 1990 ranked doctors with sailors and publicans as the people most likely to develop alcohol-related liver disease. That is a measure of the desperation to which doctors are being driven.
Secondly, there is evidence, which was adverted to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery, that early retirement is increasing. In 1987, early retirement accounted for 16.6 per cent. of the total retired doctor population; it now accounts for 22.8 per cent. Forty per cent. of women doctors and 10 per cent. of newly qualified male doctors leave the service within five years of qualifying. Those are all signs of the increasing bureaucracy, the increasing expectation of patients and the increasing work load. The Government ignore that at their peril.
When I checked with a practice in Hawick, in my constituency, I was told that a vacancy in the Hawick practice had recently been advertised, and that, five years ago when a vacancy in the same practice was advertised, there were 75 applicants; this year, there were 11. That is a measure of the difficulty of encouraging people to work in rural areas against the background of the out-of-hours commitment.
Ministers simply have not recognised that times have changed, and that it is now impossible to provide the proper level of service that GPs need to provide to meet the requirements of the moment.
I am surprised that there was not a greater input by Labour Members. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) made a sensible speech—sensible because of the emphasis he placed on the need for education. It was interesting that he supported that idea, although I notice that his new document did not come up with any great solution.

Mr. Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kirkwood: I honestly do not have time.

Mr. Brown: rose—

Mr. Kirkwood: I do not have time. [Interruption.] I was trying to be nice to the hon. Gentleman.
All the Conservative Members who spoke were from relatively built-up areas. We heard from the hon. Members for Winchester (Mr. Malone), for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant). The latter is a bit of a rural area, but the vast majority of the speeches came from people who had no appreciation of the problems that confront practitioners in rural areas.
We must acknowledge that the demands have increased by five times in the past 25 years, and doubled in the past three years, as has been said. In 1993–94, a GP was paid on average 2.8p per patient per week to provide that service. The service is an emergency service, and the Government have not succeeded in communicating that message to the general public. Increasingly, patients expect to be able to call on GPs to provide non-urgent care at any time of the evening, night or weekend. That forces local GPs to work night and day in a way that might impair their professional judgment. That position is not healthy, as I have said, or in anyone's interests.
Rural practitioners are at a much greater disadvantage than their colleagues who live in communities with deputising services or co-operative practices. There are no options available to them, nor will there be after the

Government's package is introduced. They are determined, in rural areas, to try to provide a high-quality service over a wide and sparsely populated area, and I urge the Government to try to ensure that special consideration is given to those problems in rural areas in their current negotiations with the BMA.
The Government must be more flexible. Much is at stake in those negotiations. Something must be sorted out in the next nine days. I hope that the new ministerial team at the Department of Health will take advantage of that new opportunity to have a completely fresh look at the position, so that we can have more flexible, clinically appropriate, modern ways of delivering care outside normal hours that, as the motion says, are
right for patients, fair on the taxpayer and manageable
for GPs.

Mr. Malone: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am sad to tell the House that I believe that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) has about as much knowledge of the subject as he revealed he had about my constituency, when he described a large tract of rural Hampshire as a built-up area. My constituents will be astonished, as will those of several of my hon. Friends.
I do not know where the hon. Gentleman was when I followed his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) at the beginning of the debate. I specifically went through each of the six points, and I do not intend to use the short time available to me to do so again.
Yes, of course we are prepared to look flexibly on arrangements which we have said we shall be happy to put in place, especially for rural practices. It is obtuse of the hon. Gentleman to say that one simply divides the sum of money and spends it entirely on locums. I was making the point that we can make it available as a support system in rural areas—I would not expect to see it used exclusively.
I shall now address a number of important points raised in the debate. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) asked an important question about research. Research is important, and there has probably not been enough into the subject. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the National Primary Care Research Centre in Manchester—which is sponsored by the Government to the tune of £15 million over 10 years and which I had the great pleasure of opening a few weeks ago—will be studying the issue, and will be holding a conference in the autumn on the subject of 24-hour primary care.
The subject will include considering innovative ways of providing out-of-hours care through GPs and others. It will inform us and help to formulate the future research programme.
The hon. Members for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and for Newcastle upon Tyne, East mentioned the problems of recruitment for general practitioners. I do not think that it is a sign of a shortage if, in Hawick, there are 11 applications for one practice place. The hon. Gentleman has a way of turning the arguments to suit his party. If there were 75 applications, he would say that there were


not enough places, and that there was an unemployment problem among doctors. As usual with the Liberals, they want it both ways.
Although recruitment is often raised as a current difficulty, there is no firm evidence that it is a substantial problem. The average number of applications for advertised vacancies in GP partnerships ranges from three to 34 and, in most cases, the figure is, oddly enough, 11—the same figure as that in Hawick. Perhaps the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire can take some consolation from the fact that, on this occasion, Hawick appears, unusually, to have the same figure as the national average.
It is also true that the number of GP principals has been increasing steadily under this Government. The number is currently increasing at the rate of 1 per cent. per annum. The last survey of GP training places showed that, overall, vocational training schemes were still being filled with good-quality candidates, notwithstanding a fall in the overall number of applicants.
We keep a careful eye on that issue. It is important for the long-term benefit of primary care that excellent people continue to come forward for recruitment, are retained in general practice and take up posts in general practice when they are advertised. There is no suggestion that the Government are complacent about that.
There are still sufficient numbers of people coming forward to apply for single-handed practices, which are often highlighted as a particular area of difficulty. The last figures I can give the House show that, for the year ending 30 September 1994, the figure was 19.
A number of points were raised by my hon. Friends, who sustained the debate. It is astonishing that, in a debate in the Liberal party's time on what they clearly consider to be an important subject, that party chose to put up two speakers. [Interruption.] The Greek chorus that has now arrived certainly was not present for the debate. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is usually good at getting his points across from a sedentary position, even when he is not recognised by the Chair. I should have thought that he could have made a bit more effort to do so during the debate.

Mr. James Wallace: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Malone: Now that the hon. Gentleman has arrived, I shall give way so that he can make an original point.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister is descending to unusual depths. He usually knows better than to try to make cheap points. If he had ever attended debates initiated by the Liberal Democrats—it is probably stretching things too far to suppose that he has—he would have known that it was rare for more than two of us to have the chance to speak. That is something that is wrong with this place and the way it operates.

Mr. Malone: I dare not criticise the Chair, as you well know, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am delighted that at least the hon. Gentleman has agreed to turn up for the final moments of the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) made a speech peppered with personal anecdotes and tales of his constituents who had consulted

GPs. I advise the House that those tales would have made hon. Members' hair stand on end. There are clearly a number of problems in my hon. Friend's constituency.
However, both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) pointed to the fact that they had had few letters about the issue in their constituency mailbags. Perhaps that is because there are thriving co-operatives in their constituencies, with excellent innovative arrangements in place. That may go some way towards explaining why my hon. Friends have heard little about the subject.
A theme of the debate was general practitioners' concern about the burdens they bear. I hope there can be a meeting of minds on the issue when the medical profession meets my right hon. Friend. I received a letter today from the local Hampshire medical committee—I must inform the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire that it is a rural committee—which expresses dissatisfaction and makes the point:
GPs want changes in their out-of-hours arrangements to provide emergency night care more effectively and efficiently, while ensuring that all patients continue to get the best quality care".
I quibble with none of those words. We are talking about a method of delivering that care and making sure that firm arrangements are in place to secure the interests of patients. We share common objectives, and I hope that I can agree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire—

Mr. Bayley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Malone: No, I will not give way. I hope to agree with the hon. Gentleman that those matters can be resolved.
There have been a number of rather spectacular suggestions about how to deal with the problems that GPs face today. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) mentioned the great plan of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) for dealing with problems of patient abuse in the national health service. I had read it earlier, and it is an interesting plan.
The hon. and learned Gentleman plans to charge patients 50p each time they break an appointment. I would be interested to see the collection framework that would be put in place. I have no doubt that the threat of 50p each time would strike terror in people's hearts. I have no doubt that the collection system would not be bureaucratic. I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman considered allowing the right of appeal, and whether one would receive legal aid for appealing against a 50p fine. I thought that Liberal Democrat policies were invented on the Benches opposite and not in Montgomery's local libraries, which would probably have to collect those small amounts.
There are many ways of effectively ensuring that there is no abuse of the health service. When it comes to cancelled appointments, the hon. and learned Gentleman should visit hospitals which have robust pre-admission arrangements in place, and where cancellations have been reduced to zero. I did not see many 50p pieces in those hospitals when I visited them.
It has been a typical debate from the Liberal Democrats; they change their tune all the time, don't they? On this issue, it is important to remind the House what Liberal Members have said in the past. On fundholding, in 1992 they said:
There is no case for GP fundholding".


In 1994 it was a case of, "Hang on a minute, it might be popular." They agreed that GP fundholding
does seem to have brought benefits".
On 3 July 1995, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery gave us the simple answer when he said:
We would encourage the development of joint commissioning groups. One has to be realistic, and it is not realistic to abolish all fundholding at a stroke. I do not believe that the Labour party would regard that as realistic either.
The development of joint commissioning groups … would ensure that fundholding would wither on the vine. Indeed, fundholding has always been a kamikaze policy …The Liberal Democrat view on fundholding is absolutely clear."—[Official Report, 3 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 48.]
That view has changed on a number of occasions.
I do not think that what was said from the Liberal Democrat Benches today has enlightened us about how to solve the problem of out-of-hours practice. It is important that we do, and it is in the interests of the patients. While guaranteeing the quality of their care, we must also lessen the burdens on the medical profession. That is the purpose of our policy, and I believe that, with good will, it will succeed.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:

The House divided: Ayes 35, Noes 229

[10.00 pm


AYES


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Lewis, Terry


Barnes, Harry
Loyden, Eddie


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Lynne, Ms Liz


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Maclennan, Robert


Campbell-Savours, D N
Maddock, Diana


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Mahon, Alice


Chidgey, David
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clapham, Michael
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)



Rendel, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Simpson, Alan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Skinner, Dennis


Cunningham, Roseanna
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Dafis, Cynog
Tyler, Paul


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Wallace, James


Flynn, Paul
Wigley, Dafydd


Graham, Thomas



Harvey, Nick
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Don Foster.


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Brandreth, Gyles


Alexander, Richard
Brazier, Julian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Amess, David
Browning, Mrs Angela


Arbuthnot, James
Bruce, Ian (Dorset)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Butcher, John


Atkins, Robert
Butler, Peter


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Carrington, Matthew


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Cash, William


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Chapman, Sydney


Bates, Michael
Clappison, James


Bellingham, Henry
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Beresford, Sir Paul
Coe, Sebastian


Booth, Hartley
Colvin, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Congdon, David


Bowis, John
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John





Couchman, James
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Cran, James
Knox, Sir David


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Day, Stephen
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Legg, Barry


Dover, Den
Leigh, Edward


Duncan, Alan
Lidington, David


Dunn, Bob
Lightbown, David


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Dykes, Hugh
Luff, Peter


Elletson, Harold
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
MacKay, Andrew


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Evennett, David
McLoughlin, Patrick


Faber, David
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fabricant, Michael
Madel, Sir David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Maitland, Lady Olga


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Malone, Gerald


Fishburn, Dudley
Mans, Keith


Forman, Nigel
Marland, Paul


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Forth, Eric
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Fowler, Fit Hon Sir Norman
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Merchant, Piers


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Mills, Iain


French, Douglas
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gallie, Phil
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Gardiner, Sir George
Moate, Sir Roger


Garnier, Edward
Monro, Sir Hector


Gill, Christopher
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gillan, Cheryl
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Nelson, Anthony


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Nicholls, Patrick


Gorst, Sir John
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Norris, Steve


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Ottaway, Richard


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Page, Richard


Grylls, Sir Michael
Paice, James


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hague, William
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hargreaves, Andrew
Pickles, Eric


Harris, David
Porter, David (Waveney)


Haselhurst, Alan
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hawkins, Nick
Powell, William (Corby)


Hawksley, Warren
Rathbone, Tim


Hayes, Jerry
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Heald, Oliver
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Richards, Rod


Hendry, Charles
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hicks, Robert
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Sackville, Tom


Horam, John
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hunter, Andrew
Sims, Roger


Jack, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jessel, Toby
Soames, Nicholas


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Speed, Sir Keith


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Key, Robert
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Spink, Dr Robert


Knapman, Roger
Sproat, Iain


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John






Steen, Anthony
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Stephen, Michael
Waller, Gary


Stern, Michael
Ward, John


Stewart, Allan
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Streeter, Gary
Waterson, Nigel


Sweeney, Walter
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Whittingdale, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Widdecombe, Ann



Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Thomason, Roy
Wilkinson, John


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Willetts, David


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wilshire, David


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Thurnham, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Wood, Timothy


Trend, Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Trotter, Neville



Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Simon Burns and Mr. Derek Conway.


Walden, George

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House notes that the Government has continued to meet the recommendations of the independent pay review body for general practitioners' pay, which is for a 24 hour commitment to their patients; welcomes the Government's constructive approach to addressing the profession's concerns, which includes an extra £45 million to support general practitioners' out of hours services, makes it possible for general practitioners to transfer responsibility for providing out of hours cover to another doctor and restructures payments so that the average general practitioner will receive an extra £800 per year for night visits; supports the approach of the Patient's Charter, which stresses to patients that with rights come responsibilities; and believes there is absolutely no case for general practitioners to take industrial action which would inevitably harm patient care.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c),

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCE) SCOTLAND

That the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Special Grant Report No. 1 (House of Commons Paper No. 517), which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

INCOME TAX

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Belarus) Order 1995 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 24th May.

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Bolivia) Order 1995 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 24th May.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

That the draft Employment Protection (Increase of Limits) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENT

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

ECONOMIC GROWTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10911/94, relating to economic growth and the environment; and supports the Government's view that environmental considerations should continue to be taken into account in determining economic policy, as well as other policy areas, as part of its overall commitment to furthering sustainable development.—[Mr. Wood.]

Question agreed to.

PUBLIC HEALTH

Ordered,
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 4) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1611), dated 26th June 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.—[Mr. Raymond S. Robertson.]

MERCHANT SHIPPING

Ordered,
That the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 (Commencement No. 12) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1426) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Wood.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Speaker shall put the Questions on the Motions in the names of:

(1) Mr. Tony Blair relating to the Social Security (Income Support and Claims and Payments) and Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1995 not later than one and a half hours after the first such Motion has been made;
(2) Mr. Douglas Hogg relating to the Fishing Vessels (Safety Improvements) (Grants) and (Decommissioning) Schemes 1995 not later than one and a half hours after the first such Motion has been made; and
(3) Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew relating to the draft Appropriation (No. 2) Northern Ireland Order 1995 not later than three hours after it has been made;

and the above Motions may be entered upon and proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Wood.]

MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Ordered,
That Mr. James Clappison be discharged from the Select Committee on Members' Interests and Mr. Quentin Davies be added to the committee.—[Mr. Wood.]

BROADCASTING

Ordered,
That Mr. Greg Knight be discharged from the Select Committee on Broadcasting and Mr. Timothy Wood be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Wood.]

Orders of the Day — Church of England (General Synod) (Measures)

The Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners (Mr. Michael Alison): I beg to move,
That the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
As the short title of the Measure indicates, it contains a miscellaneous collection of provisions relating to the Church of England. Their effect is described in the comments and explanations of the General Synod's legislative committee, which are annexed to the report of our own Ecclesiastical Committee. Hon. Members will have ready access to that report, if they do not have it before them now.
Two provisions in the Measure were the subject of special scrutiny in the Ecclesiastical Committee. Clause 2 permits Christ Church college, Oxford—which contains the cathedral of the Oxford diocese—through its constitution and statutes, to depart from earlier practice by acquiring the power to appoint up to two lay canons. The regius professorship of ecclesiastical history in the university of Oxford is annexed to a canonry in the cathedral, and the holder of that professorship must currently be a clerk in holy orders of the Church of England.
After discussion, the university and cathedral were both of the opinion that the present rules unduly restricted the range of candidates eligible for appointment as regius professor, requested the inclusion of clause 2 in the Measure. The Crown appoints the regius professor, but, obviously, only after taking soundings at Oxford. It has been consulted about the clause, and is content with it. The amendment had to be embodied in a clause in the Measure, because the changes have a bearing on the function to be performed by the regius professor and the residentiary canon of the cathedral.
Clause 6 amends the Church Commissioners Measure 1947, concerning the composition of the commission's assets committee. When the Measure was considered by the Ecclesiastical Committee, it became clear that the provision was regarded as premature by a majority of the Committee, in view of the recent report of the Select Committee on Social Security—under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is also Opposition spokesman on Church of England and Church Commission affairs—on Church Commission and Church of England pensions, and the impending report of the Archbishops' commission on the organisation of the Church of England, the so-called Turnbull commission.
In view of the misgivings expressed in the Committee, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York have said that they do not intend to exercise their power under clause 16 of the Measure to bring clause 6 into effect—clause 15 being an "appointed day" clause—pending consideration of the Social Security Select Committee's report, which has been studied closely, and the Turnbull report when it is available.
Against that background, the Ecclesiastical Committee has reported that the Measure is expedient, with—I am glad to say—the support, tacit or otherwise, of my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell). When the draft Measure was finally approved by the General Synod itself in November 1994, it was approved by 229 votes to one.

Mr. Frank Field: This is a miscellaneous Measure, which contains issues of considerable importance. I hope that what we say tonight will prove to be relevant to the members of the Turnbull commission who, while they are at a late stage of their considerations, have not yet reported.
Is it proper for Parliament to be presented with this miscellaneous Measure when clause 6 makes such fundamental reforms to the assets of the Church Commissioners that the archbishops have promised that, if it is passed, they will not implement its provisions? That is hardly a sensible state of affairs, and it arises for the simple reason that, under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Ecclesiastical Committee and this House can only accept or reject—it cannot amend—Measures that come over from Synod.
Many members of Synod are hooked on the idea that, if the House begins to amend Measures, cries of Erastianism will be abroad. That is a total misreading of history, as there was an interlock between Church and state during the period in which the Church of England as we know it today was formed. There is surely a role for this place to say that, on reflection, part of the Measure might be withdrawn, but that we find the rest of it expedient. We are not allowed to do that at present. Either we reject the whole Measure, or we accept the whole Measure.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): The hon. Gentleman is making an enormously important point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) said yesterday that a quarter of the population went to church on Christmas day. That must be a larger minority than almost any other minority whose affairs the House feels free to discuss.

Mr. Field: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am hesitant to make these points, because they are read differently by members of Synod who look at our debates. They somehow manage to conjure up all sorts of conspiracies that they think are going on here. They cannot accept the most obvious point—that a large number of Members of this House are interested in what happens to the Church of England, are concerned about its future and want to contribute to that future. They consider that all sorts of plots are abroad.
Newman once made a marvellous point about the school of history which interpreted Lord Burleigh's nods. Instead of recording Lord Burleigh's nods, those involved would go into a rigmarole about why he nodded, why he nodded at that particular time and what was the significance of each nod. Newman dismissed that school of history by saying that it was irrelevant and that one had to judge people by other criteria. I hope that members of Synod judge the House of Commons' contribution by the spirit of our debates. Hon Members want to contribute to the well-being of the Church of England, either because


they are members of the Church or because they believe that the prosperity of the country will be helped by its survival.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Could the hon. Gentleman share with the House why he feels that Synod has put the Measure before us as it is? Why has it not put forward only that part of the Measure that clearly has overwhelming support, and not the part about which there are rightly considerable reservations and upon which the Archbishops of Canterbury and York have stated that they have no intention of acting now?

Mr. Field: The answer to my hon. Friend, as I shall call him tonight, stems from the nature of the Measure and from the procedure that governs Synod. The deliberations of Synod were ambushed at a late stage. The wishes of the standing committee—the equivalent of a Government's Cabinet—and the archbishops were deliberately disregarded by a minority of Synod who wrote in this part of the Measure.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) was kind enough to say that, in a sense, Synod was holding back while others considered the impact of the Social Security Select Committee's report on the Church Commissioners' assets and pensions, but the big report for which the Church is waiting is that of the Turnbull commission, which is trying to consider carefully the structure of the Church and the changes that should be made, including changes to the structure of the Church Commissioners' organisation.
Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that one does not try to pass piecemeal reforms affecting the Church Commissioners while waiting for a major commission to report on the structure of all Church organisations, including the Church Commissioners.
Given the present procedure of Synod and the other clauses that should be implemented quickly, the only alternatives were either to do what my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby explained tonight—he told us that, if we passed the whole Measure, clause 6 would not be implemented—or to lose the rest of the Measure, many aspects of which contain necessary reforms that people want to be implemented quickly.
I hope, therefore, that we shall pass the Measure without a Division, but that the Turnbull commissioners will examine our procedures carefully. It is important that they make recommendations for changing the procedures of the 1919 Act because, for reasons that I explained earlier, our suggestions for reform would be misinterpreted.
I hope that the Turnbull commissioners will come to the conclusion that business could be expedited more effectively if the House had the chance, on occasion, to reject aspects of a Measure without endangering the rest of it. We should not then find the archbishops in the slightly absurd position, which has been explained tonight, of having to say, "Please pass the Measure, but like boy scouts we give you our promise not to implement clause 6." That is not a satisfactory way in which to undertake legislation.
I hope that the Turnbull commission is considering the sense behind grouping often major reforms under the guise of "miscellaneous Measures". Synod reads the

House wrongly if it thinks that we shall not provide sufficient time to consider Measures. They do not have to be grouped. My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby, who always steers Church business through the House well, is never refused time to debate a Measure that he wants to put before the House, and the issues could be broken up into separate subject matter. I hope that the commission will consider that idea.
I hope that the commission will also consider the advisability of giving the House the right of veto, not according to our own wishes, but when the standing committee and the archbishops have said, "That amendment was carried against our wishes. We should like you to strike that aspect down, but to maintain the integrity of the rest of the Measure." That would improve our procedure and the way in which we look after and safeguard Church interests in the House.
As I have said, I hope that nobody will oppose the Measure simply because clause 6 is so unsatisfactory. There are other clauses that represent long overdue reforms—I believe that my right hon. Friend drew our attention to clause 2 in particular. I hope that we shall agree the Measure without a Division, but I also hope that the members of the Turnbull commission will prove themselves eminently more sensible than some members of Synod, who dislike our having a say over Church matters as we are doing tonight, and resent our having the power to approve or not to approve Measures.
I hope that we will be seen by the commission as friends who can improve Measures and who do not want in any way to overturn the enabling Act of 1919 or to put ourselves in the driving seat. We should be seen as a group of friends anxious for the well-being of the Church of England, either because we are members of it or because it is impossible to understand English history without understanding the role that the Church of England has played in our affairs. We know that, although there is increasing secularisation, many people look to the Church as being on their side and as their Church. That being so, they expect Parliament to be involved.

Mr. William Powell: Not for the first time, it gives me real pleasure to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) on the way in which he introduced the Measure. I shall put him out of his misery: I do not propose to divide the House tonight.
I wish, however, to take this opportunity to protest about the Measure and some of its provisions. I do so because I feel that it is completely unnecessary. It is symptomatic of the way in which the Synod feels it has a duty to legislate, whether or not legislation is necessary or, indeed, urgent.
We were told during the Measure's consideration in the Ecclesiastical Committee that there is some urgency about it. The fact is, however, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) so clearly made plain, that one of the consequences of our passing the Measure would be to enact, after it has received Royal Assent, some thoroughly bad law that neither the majority of the Synod, during the early passage of the Measure, nor the archbishops of Canterbury and York regard as necessary or desirable.
The House, alas, has become all too used to passing bad law. I can certainly recall one occasion during the past decade on which the Government felt it necessary to


make a similar announcement to that which the archbishops of Canterbury and York have made. The Government said that they would not bring into operation a particular section of a statute, which was then before the House and was going through its last stages, because they felt that it was easier not to do so than to ask the House to reject it altogether.
I want to take this opportunity to protest also about clause 2(3). The hon. Member for Birkenhead says that it is necessary and overdue, but I could not disagree more. Its effect would be to provide in future that the regius professor of ecclesiastical history of Oxford need no longer be an ordained clergyman of the Church of England—as Mr. Thwackham would have said, by law established. With that position has gone a canonry in the cathedral church of Christ at Oxford—Christ Church. Christ Church is at the very heart and centre of the university of Oxford, and although I have no particular affection for that institution, I have to say that I regard the traditional ties of the ancient universities with the Crown and the Church as necessary and worth preserving.
Those of us in the Commonwealth who listen each year to the annual service of nine lessons and carols from King's college in Cambridge will recall that the bidding prayer mentions the two royal and religious foundations of King Henry VI, here and at Eton. I regard those royal and religious foundations as of lasting importance, and in no way should the traditional ties between the Crown, the Church and our ancient universities be lessened.
I also regard the position of professor of ecclesiastical history—particularly a Crown appointment, the regius professorship—as a very important chair in the university. It has been held down the years by some very distinguished men, including men who have gone on to be bishops in the Church of England—not least, of course, the great Bishop Stubbs, the famous ecclesiastical historian whose charters some of us were privileged to study when we were rather younger than we are today.
Cambridge has a chair of ecclesiastical history—the Dixie chair. The holding of that chair is not confined to ordained clergymen of the Church of England. I regard it as very important that the Church of England has within its ranks a large number of scholars, not merely of divinity and the ancient languages, but of ecclesiastical history.
To eliminate the requirement that the holder of the chair be an ordained member of the Church of England is retrograde and unnecessary. It was vaguely suggested to us that the number of candidates for any forthcoming appointments might not be sufficiently large—a contention that I reject as incorrect, but also, in principle, entirely wrong. Clergymen of the Church of England should be encouraged to be scholars of the history of our Church, which, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead suggested, has played a central part in the development of this nation over the centuries.
This morning, I was reading from a volume that I hope hon. Members will consider taking with them on their summer holidays during the long recess—"Retrospect on an unimportant life", by Bishop Hensley Henson. It is a remarkable, thoroughly readable and scholarly document of memoirs, which contain some of the most caustic comments about those with whom Bishop Hensley Henson—one of the most outstanding ecclesiastics of the 20th century—served his academic and episcopal life.
Bishop Hensley Henson was chaplain to the Speaker. He was a canon of Westminster and vicar of St. Margaret's church. When he was vicar of that church in 1908, the Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, wrote to him offering him the regius chair of ecclesiastical history. Bishop Hensley Henson, as he became, felt that he was not up to the task and made a counter-recommendation to the Prime Minister, which, alas, was rejected.
I say that because, although I do not wish to bring blushes to his cheeks, the Speaker's Chaplain is one of the people who is qualified to occupy that chair. He is an ecclesiastical chaplain of considerable distinction and, although his tenure were he to be appointed might be more limited than some of the holders of the post, he would hold it with at least as great a distinction.
My point is important. It is vital that the Church of England is aware of, and remains deeply committed to, its history and its heritage. If we say that the holder of the most important chair in ecclesiastical history in this country should no longer be an ordained member of the Church of England, he could be a member of the Roman Catholic Church or of the nonconformist Churches.

Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend said that the Measure provides that the holder of the chair must not be a member of the Church of England. Surely it is proposed that the range of choice be widened, but that it would be perfectly in order for the successful candidate to be a member of the Church of England and, indeed, to be the Speaker's Chaplain.

Mr. Powell: Not as Speaker's Chaplain, of course. If I said that that would no longer be in order, that would not be the correct way of formulating it. The Measure says that the regius professor need no longer be an ordained clergyman of the Church of England or an ordained member of that Church. I am protesting about the signal that that sends out.
I want ecclesiastical historians as clergymen and scholars in the Church of England, and I want them to hold prominent roles within the Church of England itself. There always used to be at least one outstanding scholar of ecclesiastical history on the Bench of Bishops. The last one to hold that post was Bishop Moorman, the Bishop of Ripon. It is now some 20 years or so since his retirement and there has been no one of anything like his scholarly distinction since, or indeed, judging from the Church of England today, is that at all likely or in prospect. I regard that as undesirable, and I believe that there should be incentives for scholarly men who are ordained to hold major professorships at the university of Oxford.
To people who say that, of course, there are those who are not members of the Church of England but who are qualified, I can but mention the Dixie professorship at Cambridge. That has been held with great distinction by Professor Rupp, who was a nonconformist. It can, of course, be held by others, but I do not see the need to break a link that goes back hundreds of years, which has been valuable and important to the history of our Church—and, therefore, to the history of our nation—and which has been held by some outstanding people. Too often, we dispose of the old links, and do so in a way that I regard as unfortunate. Often, such moves are rushed, and I take this opportunity to protest that the Measure was unnecessary.
A professor of ecclesiastical history would be able to be promoted beyond that position in due course. As I have said, it is necessary that those on the Bench of Bishops in


the House of Lords are scholars of the history of our Church. Of course, their main function is to attend the House of Lords, support the Government of the day and preach improving sermons, especially before Parliament on occasions of national importance such as the delivery from the gunpowder plot.
It is necessary that those on the Bench of Bishops recall the history of our Church and do so by remembering that the Church of England is in danger, as it always has been. It is necessary that they are also able to preach about the great sermon delivered before the Lord Mayor by Dr. Sacheverall, which reminded the nation that the Church was always in danger and remains so. Too often, such matters are overlooked and forgotten, and I regard that as highly undesirable.
We are passing into law a Measure that is another retreat from the traditional position of the Church of England. That is a wholly undesirable development. Although I shall allow the Measure to be passed without a Division, I take this opportunity to protest.

Mr. Alison: With the permission of the House, I shall speak a second time. In doing so, I am conscious of the fact that the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) is having to be on duty this evening and is not necessarily very much in sympathy with Church of England affairs keeping the House up too late. I shall therefore do my best to be brief. I concede, however, that the hon. Gentleman was helpful in his earlier interchanges with me about Church Commission housing in Easington. If there is anything that we can continue to do to help him, I shall be glad to do it.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who spoke for the Opposition, kindly told me that he would have to leave early. I shall in his absence make a quick response to the points that he made, and he will no doubt take note of them through the Official Report. I take seriously his criticisms of the offending clause 6, to which he specifically referred. Indeed, I was party to the device by which its effective non-implementation was secured—the archbishops undertook not to implement it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) offered trenchant criticisms of the procedures of Christ Church, Oxford. The fact is that such a Measure is not likely to come before the House again precisely for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Birkenhead—the gestation and birth of some fundamental proposals for reform along the lines that would appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). The so-called Turnbull committee will examine the relationship between the General Synod and Parliament and questions such as whether we should have more of an opportunity to make amendments. Such proposals are being made, and I hope that some of the misgivings expressed this evening will themselves be the subject of reform.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Corby will be interested to know that I am advised that Lord Bridge of Harwich, an early chairman of the Ecclesiastical Committee, is chairing the synodical government review, which is looking at the Measure procedure. At least he knows from his experience of chairing the Ecclesiastical Committee how frustrated we have been in the past. At least he knows the kind of anxieties that Parliament has about the Measures.
I do not think that the strictures of my hon. Friend the Member for Corby about the changes proposed for Christ Church would command universal support or assent in the House. I suspect, for example, that there are colleagues who feel that England may have invented cricket, football and rugger, which we did—

Mr. William Powell: Or regius professorships.

Mr. Alison: And clerically ordained regius professorships—but that the fact that Wimbledon was won by an American combating a German, that the All Blacks have proved to be extraordinary rugger players and that England does not always win the World cup has enriched those games.
Let us therefore enjoy the extra richness that will come to the university of Oxford by the throwing open of the regius professorship, as happens at Cambridge, to members of other Churches with other status. It is, after all, a competitive environment in the university world nowadays and it is precisely because Cambridge is able to appoint a Professor Rupp that Oxford is feeling a cold draught and feels that it should be enabled to develop its scope and range of appointments more widely. I hope that there will at least be some sympathy with the "Oxford" approach, if not with the "Corby" approach.
With relief that neither my hon. Friend the Member for Corby nor the hon. Member for Birkenhead—nor, I hope, the hon. Member for Easington—will seek to divide the House, I hope that the Measure will be passed.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Because my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) spoke on historical matters, I would make a minor plea to him. He might have a look at the text of his speech. The report of his rendering to the Ecclesiastical Committee reveals that, whenever he mentioned a proper name, there is a question mark after it, as though the writer was not absolutely certain of whom he was speaking. Bishop Moorman is a notable exception to that observation. In at least one case I believe that the writer has spelt the name wrong, although I do not blame him or her for that.
In the interests of historical accuracy, given that these matters will be read by PhD students in 200 years time, it would be helpful if my hon. Friend would supervise the record taken in Hansard tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

Orders of the Day — Haemophiliacs (Hepatitis C)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.)

Mr. John Marshall: There is always a risk with an Adjournment debate held at this hour that the attendance does not reflect the support for a particular point of view. I can assure my hon. Friend the Minister that the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) would have been here if they could have been. Early-day motion 1219, which relates to this issue, has attracted 230 signatures.
I pay tribute to the Haemophilia Society—whose chairman, Rev. Alan Tanner, is a constituent of mine—which does so much for sufferers from haemophilia. I also pay tribute to the dedicated staff of the haemophilia centres around the country, who seek to treat those suffering from that disease, and particularly the staff of the centre at the Royal Free, which treats a number of sufferers from my constituency.
I have a sense of deja vu because, on 15 October 1990, I instigated another Adjournment debate on the plight of haemophiliacs who had been infected with HIV. The Minister who answered on that occasion was none other than my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Health, then Under-Secretary of State. He said:
The judge's argument is based on the proposition that the Government have a moral obligation to the victims in this case. The Government accept that moral obligation"—[Official Report, 15 October 1990; Vol. 177, c. 1033.]
Within a few weeks of that speech, the Prime Minister, in answer to a question of mine at Prime Minister's Question Time, announced that the Government were to give an ex gratia payment to haemophiliacs infected with HIV. The Secretary of State for Health who persuaded the Government to do that was none other than our right hon. Friend the present Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I therefore suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that his career has a chance of going right into the stratosphere if he can reveal a generous scheme today. He certainly deserves that boost as he was a first-class pairing Whip—the definition of a first-class pairing Whip being one who gives people a night off occasionally.
It is right to remind the House of the sequence of events in the 1970s and early 1980s. In 1974, the Medical Research Council, worried about the spread of hepatitis through infected blood, recommended that the United Kingdom should become self-sufficient in blood products. In other countries, individuals sell their blood, and among those who do so are drug addicts and others who are the origin of risk.
In 1975 Lord Owen, then Minister of Health, said that Britain would become self-sufficient in blood in two to three years. It is a chilling indictment of the locust years of the late 1970s that, if that promise had been kept, this debate would not need to be held and some of those who have died would be alive today.
There was a history of warnings in the early 1980s, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) would confirm from his wife's specialist

knowledge of that issue. The first death of a haemophiliac as a result of infected blood products took place in January 1982 in Florida. In July 1982, the director of disease control in Atlanta published the first warning. There was a further warning in 1983 in The Lancet, but it was not until April 1985 that the NHS heat-treated factor VIII became available—10 years after the pledge by Lord Owen.
In January 1995, my hon. Friend the Minister announced a look-back exercise to try to find out how many people had been infected with hepatitis C. It is not yet known exactly how many people were infected with hepatitis C as a result of receiving infected blood products and infected blood, but it is obvious that about 3,000 haemophiliacs have been infected with hepatitis C and some of them have also been infected with HIV.
Although the position of those infected with hepatitis C is not the same as that of those infected with HIV, the parallels are close. It is wrong to ignore the financial plight of the latest batch of victims. The cause of infection is the same in both cases—infected blood products administered through the NHS. The consequences for many will be the same. For many, although obviously not for all, hepatitis will be just as sure a sentence of death as HIV.
The economic difficulties will be similar. Life insurance will be expensive, if not prohibitive, and mortgages will be difficult. The emotional problems will be the same. The incidence of hepatitis C varies with individuals and the timing of complications varies over a substantial period. We know, however, that, of the 3,000 haemophiliacs who have been infected with hepatitis C, about 600 will develop cirrhosis of the liver. When that happens, their chances of survival will be slim.
Whenever we debate such an issue, the Treasury talks about cost. If the onset of cirrhosis of the liver were to be the trigger for payments similar to those given to individuals infected with HIV, payments would be spread over a number of years and we would not face a huge bunching of payments in, for example, the current financial year.
The circumstances of those infected with hepatitis C vary greatly. Many will live for many years. Some—perhaps 25 per cent.—may be cured completely through interferon alpha. Others, however, will die, and already more than 50 have done so.
The current position is illogical. There was a family of three brothers: two died through having HIV and were, of course, compensated; the third, who died because he had been infected with hepatitis C, received no payment. How can one say to the mother of those three sons, "Your three sons have all died prematurely due to treatment received through the NHS. The two who died in one particularly unpleasant way were compensated, but the third, who also died in an unpleasant way for a similar reason, received no compensation whatever." The mother believes that the third son should receive not a penny more, but not a penny less, either.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I entirely sympathise with the case that he is putting to the Minister. Am I not right in saying that the House has a moral duty to represent these people who, through no fault of their own, have been infected with hepatitis C? Am I not also right in saying that, overwhelmingly, the people of this country—as they


did in the case of those infected with HIV—would be only too happy for the House, which represents the people and which has a moral duty, to provide compensation for those people who through no fault of their own have contracted what is, in some cases, a killer disease?

Mr. Marshall: Having served under my hon. Friend on the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill, it is a pleasure to agree with him again, as I did so frequently during the passage of that Bill.
We are in a position that most people would regard as illogical and immoral. It has been claimed that haemophiliacs who become infected with hepatitis C would have died if they had not had the benefit of factor VIII. That is not so: factor VIII was designed to enhance the quality of life—it was not a life-saving treatment.
The Macfarlane trust has administered the scheme for haemophiliacs infected with HIV with care, dedication and skill. When the Government decide to give payments to those infected with hepatitis C, they should use the well established machinery of the Macfarlane trust rather than create a new body to do so.
Of course, we shall be told by my hon. Friend the Minister—if we are not told by him, he will certainly be told by the Treasury—that there is a risk of setting a precedent. That is what we were told in 1990. We were told that we would open the floodgates if we allowed haemophiliacs who suffered from HIV to be compensated. What happened was that, after much effort, another group were compensated—from memory I believe that there were fewer than 100 people—who were non-haemophiliacs and who had also been infected with HIV. Clotting factor concentrates have been heat-treated since 1986 and blood has been screened for HIV since 1991. I therefore do not believe that, if we concede this fair and right case, there will be a flood of cases thereafter.
It is always the weakest of weak arguments to say that something cannot be done because it creates a precedent. If patriotism is the last resort of a scoundrel, the argument about precedent is surely the last resort of mean-minded scoundrels in the Treasury. We have to ask ourselves whether there is a problem and whether that problem is the responsibility of the individuals concerned. The Government must not act like the Pharisee of old; they must help those people who are in an unfortunate position through no fault of their own.
In April 1995, the chief medical officer sent a circular to doctors about the treatment of hepatitis C, in which he stated:
Interferon alpha is the only licensed therapy for chronic hepatitis C".
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept that the drug is successful in only a minority of cases. After three months of treatment, 50 per cent. of patients will have responded to the treatment and, of that 50 per cent., only 50 per cent. will be cured after 15 months of treatment. Interferon alpha can successfully treat 25 per cent.—one in four—of the individuals infected with hepatitis C.
It is also true that the earlier the treatment is applied, the more likely it is to be successful. I was upset to learn from the Haemophilia Society this morning that some haemophilia centres do not have sufficient supplies of

interferon alpha to treat all those who need treatment. That seems quite wrong. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can assure us that there will be no shortage of interferon alpha at haemophilia centres and that the Government will provide central funding if that proves necessary. While interferon alpha is expensive initially, it will allow one in four of those infected with hepatitis C to lead a full, healthy and active life. It is a much less expensive treatment than a liver transplant or vaccinating infants against hepatitis C.
In the late 1980s, some viewed the issue as a legal matter; others said that it was a clinical matter and that the individuals concerned had received the best possible clinical treatment. I do not believe that it is a legal or a clinical issue: I believe that it is essentially a moral issue. I think that the majority of British people believe that those who receive unfortunate treatment and who become critically ill and, in some cases, economically inactive through no fault of their own should be compensated.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) that the relatively small number of hon. Members present in the Chamber does not indicate any lack of concern about the subject—a concern that I share.
My ministerial colleagues and I have great sympathy for those patients who may have become infected with hepatitis C through blood transfusions or blood products, as we do for anyone who is inadvertently harmed through medical treatment. Despite the recent well-publicised problems with allegedly defective equipment in the blood transfusion service, this country's record of blood safety is among the best in the world.
The debate reminds us that, alongside the great benefits to patients, medical procedures rarely come without some risk. It is important to remember that it is not always possible fully to appreciate the risk at the time or to avoid suspected or known risks. In the case of each individual patient, a balance must be struck between the benefit to be gained versus any possible risk.
Let us look at the facts of hepatitis C. Most haemophilia patients infected with hepatitis C were so infected before blood products were treated to destroy viruses in 1985. That was well before the first hepatitis C tests were available in 1989. Those patients received the best treatment available in the light of medical knowledge at the time. When those patients were infected, little was known about hepatitis C, or non-A, non-B hepatitis as it was then known, and even today a lot more information is needed.
The House will be well aware that, notwithstanding the subject of the debate, the availability of factor VIII concentrate has brought great benefits to patients with haemophilia. Previously, only about 5 per cent. of patients with severe haemophilia reached the age of 40, whereas by 1980 the life expectancy was very close to that of normal males. There was less need for long periods of hospitalisation and boys had a better chance of achieving a reasonable education. Additionally, the convenience of patients being able to keep concentrate in a domestic fridge and treat themselves at the first sign of a bleed meant a considerable reduction in long-term disability.
Before there was any test for non-A, non-B hepatitis, the only way to safeguard blood was to limit those from whom blood was taken by a system of self-deferral. It excluded, among others, those known to be suffering from hepatitis or any other liver disease; drug misusers; and men who were sexually active with other men.
No one should underestimate the effects of hepatitis C. The point that I am making, and this is at the heart of the debate, is that, contrary to views that have already been expressed in another place, patients who tragically contracted HIV through NHS treatment were in a different category. Their exceptional circumstances caused us to make special provision for them.
Many people infected with hepatitis C, as has already been said by my hon. Friend, may live for a long period without any symptoms appearing. However, 50 per cent. of sufferers may progress to chronic hepatitis with varying degrees of good or ill health. Perhaps 20 per cent. of infected patients will develop cirrhosis, a progressive destruction of the liver that may take 20 to 30 years. The majority of those years will be trouble-free in terms of ill health and, as I have mentioned, only a small proportion will die of liver disease, but every death is a tragedy for the family concerned.
In the case of those who contracted HIV through NHS treatment, special payments were made and trusts established to help sufferers or their families in cases of hardship. Those arrangements were put in place in recognition of the very special circumstances of those who contracted HIV. Those affected were all expected to die very shortly, although it has since become clear that, fortunately, that is not always the case. It meant that there might also be significant numbers of young children who had lost one parent or perhaps both if the disease had been transmitted also to their partner.
Sufferers were also subjected to stigmatism and a whole range of other social problems. There were cases of doors daubed with graffiti, lost jobs and children not allowed to mix with other children at school—in short, people were denied any normal family life.
I would in no way wish to minimise the physical suffering of those who have been infected with hepatitis C through blood or blood products—the suffering which may result or the worry which they or their family may experience—but each case has to be examined on its merits. I have to recognise that those who have contracted hepatitis C are not also subject to all the additional problems experienced by HIV sufferers, who were accepted as being a very special case.
Many people infected with hepatitis C may live for a long period without any symptoms appearing or may never experience any. In any case, some people would argue that although individuals were infected in different ways, they are entitled to payments—even though no fault on the part of the NHS was proved. The Government have never accepted the case for a no-fault scheme of compensation for medical accidents. There are sound reasons. Proof of causation would still be needed. It may be just as difficult to establish that medical treatment has caused injury as to prove that someone has been negligent. It also has to be demonstrated that the outcome was not a foreseeable and reasonable result of treatment.
It would be unfair to others if individuals whose plight was the result of a medical accident would be compensated, whereas those whose condition stemmed, for instance, from disease from birth would not. Health

negligence is not considered fundamentally different from negligence in other walks of life, where claims for compensation are resolved through the courts.
The experience of other countries that have tried to follow the compensation path has strengthened the Government's view. The costs of the New Zealand scheme have proved extremely high—some 1 per cent. of gross domestic product, which is equivalent to £6 billion in the United Kingdom. In addition to practical difficulties, that scheme effectively denies access to the courts.
I understand that payments under Sweden's no-fault compensation scheme are much lower, but the authorities have found it necessary to make additional payments to individuals infected with HIV. I am not aware of any country in Europe that has made payments to patients with haemophilia infected with hepatitis C through blood products.
Every individual case in which a medical accident has occurred is a personal tragedy for the individual and his or her family. If the NHS is proved negligent in a court, of course the service accepts its liability to pay damages. It remains the Government's view that the most effective use of available resources is to seek to improve the understanding, management and treatment of the condition. Only in that way can the disease's impact on individual patients and their families be effectively minimised.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: My hon. Friend said that one way of trying to meet the problem is to improve treatment. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) told the House that some patients are not receiving supplies of interferon alpha. We know that medication is not cheap but it offers relief—and in some cases a cure. Can my hon. Friend assure the House that the cost of supplying interferon alpha will be born by the Government, so that affected patients can be properly treated?

Mr. Sackville: I was about to assure the House that I will investigate the issue of medication supplies raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South to see what can be done to ensure that the treatment promised is provided.
The Department is already supporting an initiative by the Haemophilia Society to undertake a study of the best way to support those of its members who are infected with hepatitis C. The Department has made available substantial funding in 1995 and 1996, with a commitment to further funding over a number of years. We are also discussing with haemophilia centres what must be done to ensure good practice in the treatment of people with haemophilia who also have hepatitis C.
If I may, I shall summarise what I have said. On behalf of the Government, I would like to express the greatest sympathy for those who have contracted hepatitis C through NHS treatment. We are taking a number of measures designed to enable them to receive the best possible advice and treatment. But it remains the Government's view that, in the absence of proven negligence on the part of the NHS, there is no case for using moneys which would otherwise be used for the care and treatment of other NHS patients to make special payments to those affected.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.